[Gen-art] Gen-art last call review: draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error-05
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 26 November 2013 21:25 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
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 D13501ADFC8 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:25:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311] autolearn=no
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 brL55UwOqaqQ for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:25:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A91BF1ADFBB for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:25:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-71-10-88.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.71.10.88]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id rAQLPT44097781 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:25:29 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <529511C9.2090005@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:25:29 -0600
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 173.71.10.88 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review: draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error-05
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:25:31 -0000
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-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error-05 Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review Date: 26 Nov 2013 IETF LC End Date: 27 Nov 2013 IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled Summary: Ready Two nit-level comments: I found the formulation 'The key package error content type MUST be signed if the entity generating it is capable of signing it' awkward. Protocols break if you don't follow a MUST. As written, this says its ok to break the protocol. Is this, instead, really trying to say something about the thing that's going to evaluate the error content type (like "expect a signature unless you're explicitly configured to allow a lack of one")? The word "above" in "Error codes above this point" is ambiguous. It can mean either "earlier in the document" or "with numbers greater than this value". That ambiguity may be harmless (it's easy to resolve by looking at the referenced document), but if you want to remove it, I suggest saying "The error codes listed here with values <=33".
- [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review: draft-housley… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review: draft-hou… Russ Housley
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review: draft-hou… Jari Arkko