Re: [Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 17 December 2015 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67B301B2C1B; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 04:56:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OnzZiMW8p9JJ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 04:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2EE1B2C29; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 04:56:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4CD2CCBF; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:56:54 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Co_mlGfaCBiT; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:56:54 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477372CCAE; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:56:54 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3FD1EBF6-43DE-4598-9380-6B60CB02A827"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <A36B32E0-28E9-4B9C-AE8F-F9C21B3110E4@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:56:54 +0200
Message-Id: <AB8C9CBA-C22F-46BD-AA20-DC398F356156@piuha.net>
References: <A36B32E0-28E9-4B9C-AE8F-F9C21B3110E4@gmail.com>
To: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/2MUlI9FXzlQhbM6oNpy4LGRwlvU>
Cc: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info@ietf.org, "gen-art@ietf.org \(gen-art@ietf.org\)" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 12:56:57 -0000

Thank you very much for the review, Jouni! Authors, do you have observed these comments?

Jari

On 30 Nov 2015, at 05:46, Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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-tls-cached-info-20
> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
> Review Date: 2015-11-29
> IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-04
> IESG Telechat date: 2015-12-17
> 
> 
> Summary:
> --------
> 
> Ready for publication with some nits.
> 
> Comments:
> ---------
> 
> The document was good read and easy to understand.
> 
> Minor issues/nits:
> ------------------
> 
> * IDnits spits out some warning & comments that all seem to be bogus. However, the normative reference to RFC 4634 needs to be replaced with RFC 6234.
> 
> * The document describes in few places how the mechanisms specified extends/updates the Certificate and CertificateRequest structures. So maybe the draft should also state that in its boilerplate “Updates: 5246, 7250” ?
> 
> * Line 99: s/its’/its
> 
> * Line 164: s/data\.\./data\.
> 
> * Section 5 talks about “input data” for the hash & fingerprint calculation. What the “input data” exactly is becomes obvious after reading the Appendix A. However, for non-TLS WG activist it was not obvious from the first sight. Suggest adding a forward reference to Appendix A example.
> 
> * Section 6 uses [0], [1], .. [4]. While these are perfectly correct they can be mixed with references in the first sight -> few seconds of confusion ;) I would suggest using (0), .. (4).
> 
> * The document uses referencing all styles “RFC 7250 [RFC7250]”, “RFC 7250” and “[RFC7250]”. Pick one.
> 
> * It is unclear to me what happens & what are the procedures when two different “input data”s generate the same fingerprint.
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art