Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04

Gustavo Lozano <> Fri, 19 February 2016 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA8F1B3669; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:50:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.206
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.206 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_BASE64_BLANKS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lX2k5kbOoy6H; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 435E41B366A; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:50:08 -0800
Received: from ([]) by PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:50:08 -0800
From: Gustavo Lozano <>
To: Russ Housley <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04
Thread-Index: AQHRZbZ7IpcuizW6s0aHw1ZN/8OW1J80FROA
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 23:50:08 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"; boundary="B_3538741803_4380116"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <>, IETF <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 23:50:13 -0000

Thank you Russ,

Comments inline.


On 2/12/16, 08:57, "Russ Housley" <> wrote:

>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 wait for direction from your
>document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>For more information, please see the FAQ at
>Document: draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04
>Reviewer: Russ Housley
>Review Date: 2016-02-12
>IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-04
>IESG Telechat date: 2016-02-18
>Summary:  Not Ready
>Major Concerns: 
>The Security Considerations include this paragraph:
>   Signed Marks are used primarily for sunrise domain name registrations
>   in gTLDs, but other third-parties might be using them.  A party using
>   Signed Marks should verify that the digital signature is valid based
>   on local policy.  In the case of gTLDs, the RPM Requirements document
>   [ICANN-TMCH] defines such policy.
>The RPM Requirements document [ICANN-TMCH] does not seem to say anything
>at all about validating a digital signature.
>Protocols that make use of certificates perform some checks on the
>certificate subject name to ensure that it represents an appropriate
>signer.  That is missing from this document, and it is not contained in
>[ICANN-TMCH] either.

Gustavo - I replied to a similar comment from
Stephen, reply here:

>Minor Concerns:
>Section 2, second paragraph, I think that use of the phrase "in the
>appropriate objects" ass ambiguity.  I suggest:
>   This section defines some elements as OPTIONAL.  If an elements is
>   not defined as OPTIONAL, then it MUST be included in the object.

Gustavo - Fixed in version 5 of the I-D.


>The NOTE at the end of Section 2.3 about choosing an algorithm other
>that RSA-SHA256 is better suited for the Security Considerations.
>It would be helpful to say something more about the needed security

Gustavo - Fixed in version 5 of the I-D.

>Why is RFC5730 a normative reference?  I do not see a dependency.

Gustavo - Fixed in version 5 of the I-D.

>Other Editorial Comments:
>Section 1: s/nothing precudle/nothing precludes/

Gustavo - Fixed in version 5 of the I-D.