I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at . Document: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-08 Reviewer: Ines Robles Review Date: 2020-07-08 IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-09 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: This document updates RFC7030 to address errata. This document deprecates the specification of "Content-Transfer-Encoding" headers for EST endpoints. This document fixes some syntactical errors in ASN.1 that were presented. The document is clear and well written. I have some minor nits/questions Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments/questions: 1- It would be nice to add in Terminology section that the document uses the terminology of RFC7030 and RFC5272 2- Introduction: "reports from implementers suggest..." It would be nice to add reference/s here 3- Security Considerations: It would be nice to add smth like "security considerations from RFC7030 applies also for the clarifications described in this document." 5- IANA Considerations: It would be nice to add the specific registry that IANA should update. For example, instead of "IANA is requested to update the "Reference" column for the Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier attribute to also include a reference to this document." you could add smth like (if applicable): " IANA is requested to update the registry SMI Security for S/MIME Attributes (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2) " with the reference of this document as follows: Decimal - Description -Reference 54 id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID [RFC7030] [ThisDocument] 4- Appendix A: In id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {...} 4.1- pkcs9(9) should be pkcs-9(9) ? 4.2- aa(2) should be id-aa(2) ? Thank you for this document, Ines.