Re: [Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Thu, 17 December 2015 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 EACB21B2FC7; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:04:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 ZATWX7IOjOon; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:04:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4F71B2FC6; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 09:04:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68CE02CCBF; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:04:50 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6rCHPt7Jur09; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:04:49 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C378C2CCAE; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:04:49 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_FC3E06C8-4F83-4309-8737-8975F7C8C491"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <5672DD01.3010709@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:04:50 +0200
Message-Id: <36EAD9E6-8343-4ACB-8ACF-35C6CCE6F043@piuha.net>
References: <A36B32E0-28E9-4B9C-AE8F-F9C21B3110E4@gmail.com> <AB8C9CBA-C22F-46BD-AA20-DC398F356156@piuha.net> <5672DD01.3010709@gmx.net>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/etUkpvvkjYNS-x12NxSn5cJ3jB0>
Cc: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info@ietf.org, "gen-art@ietf.org \(gen-art@ietf.org\)" <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Generate review of draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20
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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:04:54 -0000

Thanks!

On 17 Dec 2015, at 18:04, Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> wrote:

> Yes, I have seen the review comments and will address them in the next
> few days.
> 
> On 12/17/2015 01:56 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Thank you very much for the review, Jouni! Authors, do you have observed these comments?
>> 
>> Jari
>> 
>> On 30 Nov 2015, at 05:46, Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>> 
>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
>>> 
>>> Document: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20
>>> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
>>> Review Date: 2015-11-29
>>> IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-04
>>> IESG Telechat date: 2015-12-17
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Summary:
>>> --------
>>> 
>>> Ready for publication with some nits.
>>> 
>>> Comments:
>>> ---------
>>> 
>>> The document was good read and easy to understand.
>>> 
>>> Minor issues/nits:
>>> ------------------
>>> 
>>> * IDnits spits out some warning & comments that all seem to be bogus. However, the normative reference to RFC 4634 needs to be replaced with RFC 6234.
>>> 
>>> * The document describes in few places how the mechanisms specified extends/updates the Certificate and CertificateRequest structures. So maybe the draft should also state that in its boilerplate “Updates: 5246, 7250” ?
>>> 
>>> * Line 99: s/its’/its
>>> 
>>> * Line 164: s/data\.\./data\.
>>> 
>>> * Section 5 talks about “input data” for the hash & fingerprint calculation. What the “input data” exactly is becomes obvious after reading the Appendix A. However, for non-TLS WG activist it was not obvious from the first sight. Suggest adding a forward reference to Appendix A example.
>>> 
>>> * Section 6 uses [0], [1], .. [4]. While these are perfectly correct they can be mixed with references in the first sight -> few seconds of confusion ;) I would suggest using (0), .. (4).
>>> 
>>> * The document uses referencing all styles “RFC 7250 [RFC7250]”, “RFC 7250” and “[RFC7250]”. Pick one.
>>> 
>>> * It is unclear to me what happens & what are the procedures when two different “input data”s generate the same fingerprint.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gen-art mailing list
>>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>> 
>