Re: [Dime] AD review of draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-09

[Glen Zorn <[e-mail]>]

On 5/25/2011 6:34 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:

...

>>> T2: Are there any special recommendations for the experts who will
> be
>>> in charge in the future with the "Expert Review" policy as per
>>> [RFC5226] for AVP types?
>>
>> Do you mean values for the Key-Type AVP?  No such recommendations
> would
>> come from me; we had originally specified the policy as "First Come,
>> First Served"
>> (http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-wu-dime-local-keytran-
>> 03.txt)
>> on the simple theory that anybody who wanted to register, use & deploy
>> e.g. rot13 would get what they deserved ;-).  IIRC, one of the dime
>> Chairs suggested the expert review policy, so maybe they have some
>> suggestions.
>>
>> ...
> 
> [[DR]] Can you please clarify this with the chairs? If the policy is
> "Expert Review" criteria for reviewing requests for new Key-Type AVP
> values should be specified. 

I would prefer to change the policy to "Specification Required" because
this seems to be all that is really necessary for interoperability.

> 
> ...
> 
>>>
>>> E1: Why is RSA-KEM not expanded and explained in Section 2.2. -
>>> Technical Terms and Acronyms?
>>
>> Would you like the whole thing expanded or just KEM?
> [[DR]] RFC 5990 explains KEM (in the Abstract actually). This would be
> probably sufficient, although I would bet that even in the security
> community not everybody knows the names beyond R, S and A. 

OK, added definitions of both "RSA" and "RSA-KEM".

...