[Gen-art] Gen_ART review of draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-10

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Thu, 15 October 2015 22:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB7141A883D for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:56:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WVZdVJ8iOprT for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:56:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22f.google.com (mail-lf0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC8811A8839 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lffy185 with SMTP id y185so53625093lff.2 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=yBoSb9Xhi1sz6pM127ORK+wyIWVTxd7P38wWk9ZCrFQ=; b=Ib96WTTZhfiytxWiF8ATSlk09QqJZ7f7veUvdfO7ngfPgJ/Cy+FcMIfv6Cz9FMd2Uz hNUTR6V5fgJAF5YijI0cYzHF8Wy+X8O0lH//VqziEgkbituCmia7PwrVtOJ00gl0GPuv yiA70pn7wqJkndxvTR99IGaCnIwyImkhXCr7ZhQQDMafsUiz4Arjhmeslurzh+6Iu4Hn 4nIx/o9SNHkJ2d5eU/GzCfoPHPmarJgn7qvwCgzfh6B2wl0wA5VxCtfpU3hNHVydUDBc /82RGIqDXNXXS6i5FEVuLg812ATxd8/dMoOtWrgfOVmZOiNjtThwHk61rHZK1NscimTf 5N7Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id e74mr4051405lfb.11.1444949796761; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:56:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAC8SSWu-p-exvzpEY=5hVQrHiCnKRkbfMHCevbu8Az=mGwFpRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-santesson-auth-context-extension.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114066d25abc7005222c97da"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/sV4JW8SbkCxGw_66gyr5iO3CO-0>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen_ART review of draft-santesson-auth-context-extension-10
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, 15 Oct 2015 22:56:41 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen
Review Date: Oct-15-2015
IETF LC End Date: Oct-27-2015
IESG Telechat date: not yet


Ready for publication as an Informational RFC.


I do not have deep expertise on the area this I-D covers. Having read it
through and knowing the solution is already deployed for few years I have
no technical comments.

Minor issues/nits:

1) IDNits result that need to be addressed:
   ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC5280], [SAML]), which it
      shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the
      documents in question.

2) == Unused Reference: 'RFC5322' is defined on line 416, but no explicit
      reference was found in the text

3) Since this targets Informational RFC I wouldn't mind seeing all references
   except RFC2119 as informational references and not normative. We could argue
   whether RFC2119 language is needed at all (but no strong opinion here).

4) Introduction third paragraph:

   * expand SAML on the first occurrence

   * I would welcome a reference for "SAML federation"

5) Introduction eight paragraph:

   * expand CA on the first occurrence

6) Section 3.1.2:

   * expand OID on the first occurrence (now it comes after the paragraph
     explaining "Ref")

   * three times  s/REF/Ref