I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc5272-bis-05
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 5 September 2011
IETF LC End Date: 29 August 2011 (sorry)
IESG Telechat date: (if known) -
Summary: Probably ready with nits. I cannot trace one of the added
pieces of ASN.1 in
the body into the appendix but this may be a problem with my
understanding of ASN.1. There is also one possible missing cross
reference between the updated base RFCs
Major issues:
Minor issues:
Nits/editorial comments:
General: The TBDs for the OIDs in the body are not linked to the
numbered TBDs in the ASN.1 appendices,
General: There are a number of acronyms (e.g., RA) that are defined in
the base (to be updated) RFCs. I think the definitions (and
derivations) probably need to be duplicated here (in a separate
terminology section?) Thus may be irrelevant if the document is merely
going to be used as instructions for updates to the base RFCs.
General: There are a number of places where there are instructions
embedded in alleged new sections. The distinction could be improved by
adding (say)
'New Text starts here:'
General: There are a few places where it would be desirable to use
non-breaking hyphens to avoid ASN.1 names being split across lines.
Abstract/s1: It would be useful to give a summary of the general areas
of the deficiencies. Presently its not clear why one might want to read
this doc. This is probably a summary of ss2.1, 3.1 and 4.1)
[Note for s2.3, para 2: Presumably the change from referencing s6.3.1.3
to s6.1.3 is an appropriate correction of a typo in the original.]
s2.6, para 2:
This control is designed to
be used in a couple of different cases where an RA has done some
additional processing on the certificate request such as key
generation and needs to respond with both the original response
message from the certificate issuer as well as in the response the RA
is generating.
This seems a bit offhand. Is it sufficient to accurately to define
where it is used?
s2.6: I don't see the ASN.1 for id-cmc-responseBody in the Appendix.
Is this a bug?
s2.11: Is the port referred to here the same as the one being allocated
in s3.1? If so it would probably be helpful to have a reference to the
updated RFC 5273.
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
