Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-eastlake-rfc6931bis-xmlsec-uris-19

[Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>]

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your detailed review of this somewhat lengthy draft!

Sorry for my slow response, I've been on vacation at www.discon3.org.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:24 PM Peter Yee via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> 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-eastlake-rfc6931bis-xmlsec-uris-19
> Reviewer: Peter Yee
> Review Date: 2021-12-14
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-12-15
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: This update document corrects the IANA’s XML Security URIs registry.
> It also fixes errata in RFC 6931. There are a few nits that should be fixed
> prior to publication. [Ready with Nits]
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues: None
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> General:
>
> Replace all occurrences of “US National Institute of Science and Technology”
> with “US National Institute of Standards and Technology”. While I’m sure they
> would appreciate the upgrade to their remit (along with a concomitant increase
> in funding), I suspect that the old US National Bureau of Standards still wants
> to be known for being in the standards business. Sort of like the IETF. ;-)
>

OK :-)

> Specific:
>
> Page 11, section 2.2.3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “It’s” to “Its”.
>
> Page 12, section 2.2.6, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: append a comma after
> “stateful”.
>
> Page 13, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence (fragment?): append a colon at the end of
> the fragment “An example of use is”. Do the same in the equivalent place in
> each of the 2.3.x sections.
>
> Page 13, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “pre-pended” to “prepended”.
>
> Page 15, 1st paragraph, last sentence: append a comma after RIPEMD160.
>
> Page 15, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: append “to” after “referred”.
>
> Page 16, section 2.3.8, 1st paragraph, last fragment: append a colon after the
> fragment. For consistency and readability, add blanks lines around the “hex”
> line as was done in section 2.3.1.
>
> Page 19, section 2.3.12, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “advatages” to
> “advantages”.
>
> Page 19, section 2.3.12, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change “choosen” to
> “chosen”.

OK on above.

> Page 20, end of section 2.4: there appears to be an extra blank line compared
> to other section separators. What can I say?

Sharp eyes! The idea was to have an extra blank line before each 2nd
level header in Section 2 to improve readability. The improvement may
be almost insignificant but I am inclined to leave in the extra blank
lines and have, in fact, added a couple more blank lines so as to
consistently implement my idea of such extra blank lines.

> Page 21, section 2.6.1, 1st paragraph, last sentence (fragment): append a colon.
>
> Page 23, section 2.6.5, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change “128-bit key sizes”
> to “a 128-bit key size”.
>
> Page 25, section 2.7.2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “exacty” to
> “exactly”.
>
> Page 27, section 3: append a comma after “below”. Append a comma after “3.2”.

OK on the above.

> Page 32, section 4.1, last paragraph. This text essentially reiterates the note
> from the beginning of the section about the part of the URI being omitted.
> Perhaps the text could also be omitted as repetitious?

Assuming you are talking about the last sentence, just before the 4.2
header, this is a pretty darn long table. The column headers are
repeated as column footers due to the height of that span and I think
it is reasonable to leave in this sentence just past the end of the
table.

> Page 35, last paragraph: while not harmful, the text in this paragraph almost
> completely mirrors the text in the first paragraph of the section on page 32.
> Perhaps this one can be deleted?

See answer immediately above.

> Page 36, section 5.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “Criterion” to
> “Criteria”.
>
> Page 38, section 6, 3rd paragraph: the MD5 mention here is presumably subsumed
> by the 2nd paragraph’s more specific discussion of MD5 and could perhaps be
> eliminated in the 3rd paragraph.
>
> Page 40, Appendix A, 3rd item, section 2.2.6 row: change “amd” to “and”.
>
> Page 40, Appendix A, 5th item: change “approriate" to “appropriate”.
>
> Page 41, Appendix B, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “Section” to
> “Sections”. Also change the bare “Bad” to “bad”.

OK on above.

Thanks again,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [e-mail]