Elwyn, thank you for your review. I have entered a Discuss ballot for this document (since the IANA review has not yet concluded; I will lift it when IANA is OK.)
Lars > On 2022-7-22, at 17:21, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review result: Ready with Issues > > 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 > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-cose-countersign-06 > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies > Review Date: 2022-07-22 > IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-10 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Almost ready with one minor issue and several nits. I do not > understand how it is decided what the count of bstr fields is which is needed > to determine if the other_fields mechanism is invoked. Are all the standard > fields included? And could other_fields be included in an example please? > Constructing an example would be helpful for both author and users I think. > > Major issues: > None > > Minor issues: > s3.3, description of 'other_fields': I am confused as to which bstr's count > towards the 'only two' condition. All the fields after 'context' are encoded > as bstr so are all these involved in the count? Also I couldn't see an > example > which appeared to showcase how 'other_fields' is used. This might well have > helped. > > Nits/editorial comments: > Abstract: Idnits is thoroughly confused by the document claiming to update > RFC > 8152 when it is actually updating an RFC that hasn't been published yet. > Given > that rfc8152bis (RFC-to-be 9052) hasn't been published yet, I wonder if a note > about countersigning could be added into that document. But in any case this > document updates RFC 9052. > > General: Use of " rather than ' for quoted strings. [s1.3 (6 places), s3.3 (2 > places)] > > s1.3: s/Byte is a synonym for octet./"Byte" is a synonym for "octet" in this > document./ > > s1, para 3: I think this needs a little expansion: "the inclusion of more of > values in the countersignature". At least s/of more of values/of the content > of additional fields/ (if I understand correctly). > > s2, para 3: s/Details on version 2/Details of version 2/ > > s3, para 2: s/This is same structure/This is of the same structure/ > > s3.3, para 1: s/takes in countersignature/takes in the countersignature/ > > s5.2, last para: s/"(Deprecated by [[This Document]]"./"(Deprecated by [[This > Document]])"./ [Missing closing bracket.] > > s7.1: For the record there seems to be some lack of clarity as to whether > there > are two or three different languages supported. The 'Languages' line says 3 > languages but only mentions Java and C#. Further on in 'Testing', Java, C# > and > C are mentioned. Since this section will be removed before publication it is > not of great importance but would be good to get it right. I couldn't see a C > implementation in the cose-wg repository. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
