Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 02 May 2018 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0271F12DA0A; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 5VhURo-VozRy; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF1D112E03A; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:52:12 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'David Schinazi' <dschinazi@apple.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
CC: spasm@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis.all@ietf.org
References: <152480069184.6083.13015201919417586774@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <152480069184.6083.13015201919417586774@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 11:54:42 -0700
Message-ID: <052101d3e247$09dd2680$1d977380$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQETQ5fYDEoS+2SNPNrfePGEcactRaWclNBA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/CTKR-yZ5P7JNTxUabRDRPNOHOGM>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 02 May 2018 18:55:12 -0000

I have published a -08 with these changes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:45 PM
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: spasm@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07
> 
> Reviewer: David Schinazi
> Review result: Ready
> 
> 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-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07
> Reviewer: David Schinazi
> Review Date: 2018-04-26
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-27
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
>     This document is clearly written and does a nice job of explaining the
>     rationale and historical context of the decisions it made.
> 
> Major issues:
>     None noticed during this review
> 
> Minor issues:
>     I was slightly confused by the description of AuthEnvelopedData in 2.4.4:
>     it seems to describe data protected by a symmetric AEAD but then
> mentions
>     asymmetric keys. But this could be due to my lack of expertise in S/MIME.

I have tried to clear this up.  The following sentence has been added

            In order to distribute the symmetric key, a sender needs to have access to a public key for each intended
            message recipient to use this service.

> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
>     I believe the RFC2119 reference should also mention RFC8174.

Done

Jim