[Gen-art] review of draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-11.txt
Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi> Tue, 22 September 2015 11:20 UTC
Return-Path: <kivinen@iki.fi>
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 BDA011A1EEC for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 NjZseVzJ-dQD for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.kivinen.iki.fi (fireball.acr.fi [83.145.195.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DACC51A1C06 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fireball.acr.fi (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.kivinen.iki.fi (8.15.1/8.14.8) with ESMTPS id t8MBJnRj012698 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:19:49 +0300 (EEST)
Received: (from kivinen@localhost) by fireball.acr.fi (8.15.1/8.14.8/Submit) id t8MBJn0Y018359; Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:19:49 +0300 (EEST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <22017.14676.983804.616136@fireball.acr.fi>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:19:48 +0300
From: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>
To: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
In-Reply-To: <201509141315.t8EDFIDA027591@givry.fdupont.fr>
References: <201509141315.t8EDFIDA027591@givry.fdupont.fr>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.5.1 (x86_64--netbsd)
X-Edit-Time: 6 min
X-Total-Time: 6 min
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/CbHumtbJidyYILKWp9BX1Mg4lMg>
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-11.txt
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: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:20:05 -0000
Francis Dupont writes:
> Document: draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-11.txt
> Reviewer: Francis Dupont
> Review Date: 20150911
> IETF LC End Date: 20150923
> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>
> Summary: Ready
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> - ToC page 2 and 6 page 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments
Hmmm:
~/ietf-mirror/rfc>fgrep -l Acknowledgements rfc*.txt | wc -l
2961
~/ietf-mirror/rfc>fgrep -l Acknowledgments rfc*.txt | wc -l
1998
So in the RFCs the version with middle "e" seems to be winning, i.e.
60% RFCs use that version. On the other hand there is 73 RFCs which
use both spellings... I think I will stick with the spelling I am used
to as both of them seems to be acceptable.
> - 1 page 3: IMHO the choice of the SubjectPublicKeyInfo format is
> the right one.
>
> - 3 page 4: is a a very -> is a very
Fixed.
> - A.1 page 8 and A.2 page 10: i.e. -> i.e.,
Fixed.
> - A pages 7 - 10: BTW I used your 2 examples to add new unit tests in
> an application crypto library so I can confirm the 2 SPKIs are correct.
Good to know. Thanks for testing them.
--
kivinen@iki.fi
- [Gen-art] review of draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pub… Francis Dupont
- [Gen-art] review of draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pub… Tero Kivinen
- Re: [Gen-art] review of draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob… Jari Arkko