[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

MIME-Version: 1.0
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
Precedence: list

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-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…"

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Review: draft-ietf-pkix-pubkey-… Mary Barnes