Re: [Hipsec] draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre01

[Ari Keranen <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 06/30/2010 02:20 PM, Samu Varjonen wrote:
> Here is the new preversion of the hip-cert with some editorial changes, 
> clean-up, new certificate examples, and so on...
> 
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/sklvarjo/draft-ietf-hip-cert-04-pre02.txt

Thanks, looks better now. More comments in line.

> Ari Keranen wrote:
>> The document would benefit from using more normative language, i.e., 
>> capitalizing the relevant shoulds/musts/mays and thinking once more 
>> through which form is appropriate.
>>

I still found only one capitalized MUST in the whole document (and no 
MAYs or SHOULDs). Maybe it's just me, but I find a non-informational 
document lacking RFC 2119 keywords a bit disturbing: it looks like it is 
all purely informational.

Then I realized that the document's current status is indeed 
Informational. Shouldn't it be experimental?

>> 2.  CERT Parameter
>>
>>    The CERT parameter is covered by the HIP SIGNATURE field and is a
>>    non-critical parameter.
>>
>> This is better than the previous version, but I'd suggest adding 
>> "(where present)" after "is covered" to point out that in I1 it would 
>> not be covered by a signature.
>>
> 
> OK, changed

This is a true nit, but I would have put the "where present" in 
parenthesis or surrounded it with commas.

>>
>> 7.  IANA Considerations
>>
>> Should the certificate types have their own registry?
>>
> 
> I would say yes, any other opinions.

Yes.


Cheers,
Ari