Re: [Gen-art] Genart review of draft-ietf-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols-18

["Peylo, Martin (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christer,

 

thank you for your review and valuable nits. Please find my comments
inline, prefixed with an "MP".

 

Attached, the so far unpublished (pre-)19 version of the draft
implementing the changes described below.

 

Kind regards,

Martin

 

From: ext Christer Holmberg [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 10:35 AM
To: [e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: Genart review of draft-ietf-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols-18

 

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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
posting a new version of the draft.

 

Document: draft-ietf-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols-18.txt

Reviewer: Christer Holmberg

Review Date: 14 May 2012

IETF LC End Date: 21 May 2012

IESG Telechat date: 24 May 2012

 

Summary: The draft is ready for publication, but with a number of
editorial nits.

 

Major issues: -

 

Minor issues: -

 

Nits/editorial comments:

 

 

Section 1:

----------- 

 

Q1-1: In my opinion the following statement (1st paragraph) can be
removed:

 

   "This document defines the transport mechanism which was removed from
the main CMP specification
   with the second release and referred to be in a separate document."

 

Because, the following paragraphs describes very well the background,
and justification of the new transport. There is no need to say whether
the new transport was originally supposed to be part of the main spec or
not.

 

MP: Removed.

 

 

Q1-2: In the 2nd paragraph, please add reference to HTTP on first
occurrence.

 

MP: although it's the first occurrence in 2nd paragraph, I would prefer
to add the references to RFC 1945 and RFC2616 to the 4th paragraph.
Reason is that 2nd paragraph contains only an historic reference - and
there (in RFC2510) it was not referenced what HTTP is either. See below
how the 4th paragraph will then look like when also fixing Q1-3.

 

Q1-3: The following statement is a little confusing:

 

   "During the long time it existed as draft, this RFC was undergoing
drastic changes."

 

There hasn't been any changes to the RFC, but to the draft. So, I would
say something like:

 

            "Before this document was published as an RFC, the draft
version underwent drastic changes during the work process."

 

MP: Changed, I inserted "long-lasting" to highlight the long time it
took from draft-1 (June 22, 2000) to now. So the paragraph is now:

 

   Before this document was published as an RFC, the draft version

   underwent drastic changes during the long-lasting work process.  The 

   "TCP-Based Management Protocol" was enhanced and a TCP-Messages-over-

   HTTP transport specification appeared.  As both proved to be needless

   and cumbersome, implementers preferred to use plain HTTP transport

   following [RFC1945] or [RFC2616].  This document now reflects that by

   exclusively describing HTTP as transport protocol for CMP.

 

Section 2:

-----------

 

Q2-1: The section only contains the RFC 2119 terminology, but that is
normally in a "Conventions" section.

 

Q2-2: As there are no requirements listed, I suggest to remove the
section.

 

MP: This was totally missed so far. I will change this section to
"Conventions Used in This Document" as of course the RFC 2119
terminology is used throughout the document.

 

Section 3.2:

-------------

 

Q3_2-1: The text says:

 

"However, neither HTTP nor this protocol are designed to correlate
messages on the same

            connection in any meaningful way;"

 

It is a little unclear what "this protocol" refers to.

 

MP: changed to "... neither HTTP nor the protocol specified in this
document are designed..."

 

Section 4:

-----------

 

Q4-1: It is a little unclear what is meant by "legacy implementations".
Do you consider implementations based on earlier versions of the draft
as "legacy"? In my opinion a "legacy" implementation is based on a
previously published standard/RFC.

 

So, if the section is supposed to cover issues with earlier versions of
this draft, I think it should be called something else.

 

MP: I'm following a proposal from Sean Turner here and take his
excellent suggestion to replace the complete section.

 

> 4.  Implementation Considerations

> 

>     Implementors should be aware that implementations might exist that

>     use a different approach for HTTP transport because this document

>     has been under development for more than a decade.  Further,

>     implementations based on earlier drafts of this

>     document might use an unregistered "application/pkixcmp-poll" MIME

>     type.

> 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Christer