[art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-update-04
Jim Fenton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 01 April 2024 18:03 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD37C15108E; Mon, 1 Apr 2024 11:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Jim Fenton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-update.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.9.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171199463982.27279.13238273687080929241@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 11:03:59 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/dtDzAxFGJGhyzEj6cZUXCnLLUIo>
Subject: [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-update-04
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 18:03:59 -0000
Reviewer: Jim Fenton Review result: Almost Ready I am the designated ART ART reviewer for draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-update-04. Status: Almost ready Comments: Section 1, suggest replacing "[RFC8954] enforce the maximum" to "[RFC8954] limits the maximum" Section 2, suggest replacing "enforce" with "limit". Section 2.1 paragraph 1 can be deleted since this is replacing RFC8954 in its entirety. Section 2.1 paragraph 3: "An OCSP client that implements this document SHOULD use a minimum length of 32 octets..." while RFC 8954 says, "Newer OCSP clients that support this document MUST use a length of 32 octets..." It seems like this requirement has been weakened; is there a reason for that? Also in that paragraph, rather than "in excess of what is permitted by RFC 8954" suggest saying "in excess of the limit of 32 octets that was specified in RFC 8954." Section 2.1 paragraph 4: replace "...MUST accept Nonce octets length of at least 16 octets..." with "...MUST accept Nonce lengths of at least 16 octets..." Section 2.1 paragraph 5: replace "Nonce octet length" with "Nonce length" In the example, the object identifier, in addition to Offset and Length, is in decimal. I don't have the expertise in ASN.1 to fully review Appendix A; hopefully another reviewer can check that. IDNITS points out that you have a normative reference to RFC 5912, which is informational. I'm not sure the reference is really normative, though.
- [art] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps… Jim Fenton via Datatracker
- Re: [art] [EXTERNAL] Artart last call review of d… Himanshu Sharma
- Re: [art] [EXTERNAL] Artart last call review of d… Himanshu Sharma
- Re: [art] [EXTERNAL] Artart last call review of d… Himanshu Sharma
- Re: [art] [EXTERNAL] Artart last call review of d… Jim Fenton