Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility-05

Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com> Wed, 06 March 2019 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rharwood@redhat.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 0FB85126C15; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:01:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 6MDrIU-DsDYn; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CFA212D84D; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:01:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C177C3082E53; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 21:01:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (ovpn-112-13.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.13]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ECD019C67; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 21:01:11 +0000 (UTC)
From: Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: kitten@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility.all@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <155142941301.6207.9229636209459945659@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <155142941301.6207.9229636209459945659@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 16:01:05 -0500
Message-ID: <jlgo96nd8fi.fsf@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.23
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.46]); Wed, 06 Mar 2019 21:01:11 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/ZgIn7Y4RJlh0y1C7cfnY0P7HeIU>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility-05
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Mar 2019 21:01:18 -0000

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> writes:

> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> 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-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility-05
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review Date: 2019-03-01
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-02-17
> IESG Telechat date: 2019-03-07
>
> Summary: The draft needs to be more clear on how RFC 4556 is updated.
>
> Major issues: None
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Q1:
>
> For the unfamiliar reader, it is unclear exactly how RFC 4556 is updated. There
> is e.g., no text indicating what sections of 4556 are updated, and there is no
> "Updates to RFC 4556" section.
>
> I assume the remainder of the draft then updates RFC 4556, but I think it needs
> to be more clear for the unfamiliar reader.
>
> Even if a "Updates to RFC 4556" section would not be feasible, the document
> should indicate what parts/sections of 4556 are updated, and what sections in
> the draft defines those updates.
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
> Q2:
>
> Both the Abstract and the Introduction start with "This document updates
> PKINIT,..."
>
> I think it would be good to first give some background information on the
> issue(s), and then state that the document fixes those issues by updating RFC
> 4556.

Hi Christer, thanks for your review.

Greg has created and uploaded a new version (-06) to the tracker that
hopefully addresses your concerns.

Thanks,
--Robbie