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-taps-minset-06 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 2018-08-28 IETF LC End Date: 2018-09-04 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but with nits to consider before publication. I had to read quite a bit more than just RFC8303 to understand what this document has to say. I suggest moving at least the transport- security document to normative, and probably also RFC8095. This was a big effort, and it appears that it was helpful to the folks working on the interface document, but it's not clear how it will be useful to implementers. The IESG should consider whether this, like requirements documents, needs to be in the RFC series. The most likely use I can see in the future would be for historians, and a different and shorter presentation would serve them better. If it proceeds to publication, consider the following nits: The conclusion (section 4) would be more useful if it were moved to the introduction (it says things more clearly than the introduction does now). Please check with the RFC Editor early about whether the [COBS] reference is sufficiently stable. And a couple of questions about the larger work for the group: The capacity profile concept as captured in this document (page 9) says it's a number. The interface document has the concept, with an enumeration. Ultimately, this is going to require a registry, and you might consider establishing it even though the interface is still supposed to be an abstract thing. The enumeration is looking pretty concrete. In Appendix A.1, this document had to "slightly change" the characterization of features from those in RFC8303, introducing this "ADDED" construct. That feels out of balance. Is this a warning sign that RFC8303 needs adjusting?