# tsvart review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6712bis-07

CC @larseggert

This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review
team's ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were
written primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
document's authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and
also to the IETF discussion list for information.

When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.

## Comments

### Section 3.1, paragraph 1
```
     Implementations MUST support HTTP/1.0 [RFC1945] and SHOULD support
     HTTP/1.1 [RFC9112].
```
It's almost 2025. Can we still not recommend more modern versions of
HTTP, and also enforce the use of TLS?

### Inclusive language

Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more
guidance:

 * Term `man`; alternatives might be `individual`, `people`, `person`

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Outdated references

Document references `draft-ietf-lamps-rfc4210bis-13`, but `-14` is the latest
available revision.

Reference `[RFC5246]` to `RFC5246`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8446` (this may
be on purpose).

Reference `[RFC2510]` to `RFC2510`, which was obsoleted by `RFC4210` (this may
be on purpose).

### Grammar/style

#### Section 3.5, paragraph 2
```
 'cmp' to ease interworking in a multi-vendor environment. The CMP client nee
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
This word is normally spelled as one.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool