[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cose-countersign-06

Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 22 July 2022 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44987C14792F; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 07:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: cose@ietf.org, draft-ietf-cose-countersign.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.10.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <165849969527.36885.13797431376259499072@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 07:21:35 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/jrTPQpNSafEhkpyMYn3r250_ghM>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cose-countersign-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:21:35 -0000

Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
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


Document: draft-ietf-cose-countersign-06
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2022-07-22
IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-10
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Almost ready with one minor issue and several nits.  I do not
understand how it is decided what the count of bstr fields is which is needed
to determine if the other_fields mechanism is invoked.  Are all the standard
fields included?  And could other_fields be included in an example please?
Constructing an example would be helpful for both author and users I think.

Major issues:

Minor issues:
s3.3, description of 'other_fields':  I am confused as to which bstr's count
towards the 'only two' condition.  All the fields after 'context' are encoded
as bstr so are all these involved in the count?  Also I couldn't see an example
which appeared to showcase how 'other_fields' is used.  This might well have

Nits/editorial comments:
Abstract:  Idnits is thoroughly confused by the document claiming to update RFC
8152 when it is actually updating an RFC that hasn't been published yet.  Given
that rfc8152bis (RFC-to-be 9052) hasn't been published yet, I wonder if a note
about countersigning could be added into that document. But in any case  this
document updates RFC 9052.

General: Use of " rather than ' for quoted strings. [s1.3 (6 places), s3.3 (2

s1.3: s/Byte is a synonym for octet./"Byte" is a synonym for "octet" in this

s1, para 3: I think this needs a little expansion:  "the inclusion of more of
values in the countersignature".  At least s/of more of values/of the content
of additional fields/  (if I understand correctly).

s2, para 3: s/Details on version 2/Details of version 2/

s3, para 2: s/This is same structure/This is of the same structure/

s3.3, para 1: s/takes in countersignature/takes in the countersignature/

s5.2, last para: s/"(Deprecated by [[This Document]]"./"(Deprecated by [[This
Document]])"./ [Missing closing bracket.]

s7.1: For the record there seems to be some lack of clarity as to whether there
are two or three different languages supported.  The 'Languages' line says 3
languages but only mentions Java and C#.  Further on in 'Testing', Java, C# and
C are mentioned.  Since this section will be removed before publication it is
not of great importance but would be good to get it right.  I couldn't see a C
implementation in the cose-wg repository.