[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-pkix-pubkey-caps-04.txt

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Mon, 23 April 2012 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 4979C21F873C for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.414
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qhLKfmAzVvW1 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648E421F8721 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo1 with SMTP id fo1so5186913vcb.31 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:48:54 -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:cc:content-type; bh=epDR7nlYMghLmse7rK3ZPskG1jwrnZSxrZMehlomguQ=; b=ss/72izvgI360XZeXys/zY+QX5ASMrN6TgjQ53o2IYaVDHDP+Eo9uRLGAqvNgfzywr fHvkp3T0MNCLFET5A7xUxq0H368/KnV7GJrKCOU3qY1ghS2ioHbGIT1ayXdBMgSacL3y Uoa72rpauX3U45NVIoykouB70vZE2CveENNmnDnW2uvCT0P6/pIKJfgKhjtD/RYSs9el 0rpfa1Ns7gBb4SHpO5KwEXhO6q7o5sGWZcLusjbHmt3lJlbDc7fEZz7+fHV9xbVAWe0w lO7dTFlganRdbsYTncQONPr7llxcCuQDGZrumnB/FJmYO6Nn9xX1Ofu5QtO0rY9L0GUF iMuQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.28.200 with SMTP id d8mr6135334vdh.38.1335203333916; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.68.145 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:48:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN4Fkt45-ikM9twDkyt7vK9fYb+gRPUqMir8AnuUtqS75Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-pkix-pubkey-caps.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3079bc9e6bc77704be5c40aa
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-pkix-pubkey-caps-04.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:48:55 -0000

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>gt;.

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

Document: draft-ietf-pkix-pubkey-caps-04.txt
Reviewer:  Mary Barnes
Review Date:  23 April 2012
IETF LC Date: 20 April 2012
IESG Telechat Date: 26 April 2012


Summary:  Almost ready (nits & minor issues).

Comments: There are quite a number of editorial nits, and a couple cases
where those result in lack of clarity, thus minor issues.  I am also
assuming that someone has validated the ASN.1 notation.

Minor Issues:
--------------
Section 1:
- 2nd paragraph:
 -- last sentence.  The phrase "most just consisted" in the following
sentence is missing an object - most what?
   This was especially easy since most just
   consisted of the object identifier for the algorithm.
I think based on the context that it should be written as
"most values", but it's not entirely clear to me, or perhaps it should be
"most parameters".

- 3rd paragraph:
  -- RFC 2119 language is used - "MUST NOT", however, there is no reference
to RFC 2119 language, which is fine given this is an informational
document.  It would seem that should be written lower case, in particular
given this is an introduction, which in general shouldn't include normative
language.

Section 4.2 & 4.3:
- there's a "(id-??)" in these two sections.  Is that intentional or should
that be referring to an explicit existing object identifier?

- There seems to be typos in the names of the ASN.1 elements that are being
defined:
  -- scap-ec-dh:  Shouldn't this be scap-pk-ecDH or am I just not
understanding the notation here?
 -- scap-ec-MQV: Shouldn't this be scap-pk-ecMQV?


Nits:
-----
Section 1:
- 2nd paragraph:
  -- 1st sentence:  "senders" -> "sender's"
  -- 5th sentence:  "…were ever use." -> "…were ever used."

Section 1.1:
- 1st paragraph after description fields:
  "The square brackets defined optional …" ->  "The square brackets define
optional…"

Section 2.2:
- 1st paragraph, last sentence: there's a stray "s" in the sentence after
"location"

Section 4.1:
- 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: "All most" -> "Almost"

Section 5:
- title: "RSASSA-PSS" ->  "RSA-SSA-PSS"
- second paragraph: there's inconsistent use of tense in these sentences.
 I would suggest changing"
  --  "it is always placed" -> "it was always placed"
  --  "meant that one can place" to "meant that one could place"

- last paragraph:  "…the assumption that entire matrix…" -> ""…the
assumption that the entire matrix…"

Section 6:
- 1st paragraph: "…that need to be taking into account…" ->  "…that need to
be taken into account…"

- 5th paragraph:  I don't find the first sentence helpful. I would find it
much easier to read if the 4th and 5th paragraphs were combined and the
first sentence of the 5th removed entirely and reword the 2nd sentence of
the 5th as:
"However, passing too much information…"