Gen-art review of draft-ietf-smime-multisig-04.txt
Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 07 March 2008 18:11 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F6BB3A6B6D; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.134
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.303, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46cJWE9VvVPm; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EC828C44D; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6AA28C2B2; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dWUQQRHCzKFy; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a.painless.aaisp.net.uk (a.painless.aaisp.net.uk [81.187.30.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AD773A6929; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:11:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 247.254.187.81.in-addr.arpa ([81.187.254.247] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by a.painless.aaisp.net.uk with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>) id 1JXgzK-0002mb-Ea; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:08:10 +0000
Message-ID: <47D18547.4050905@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:11:19 +0000
From: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14 (Windows/20071210)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>
Subject: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-smime-multisig-04.txt
X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (Version: ClamAV 0.92/6166/Fri Mar 7 16:36:07 2008, by smtp.aaisp.net.uk)
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, jimsch@exmsft.com, smime-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Mary Barnes <mary.barnes@nortel.com>, turners@ieca.com, smime-ads@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see _http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html_). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-smime-multisig-04.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 7 March 2008 IETF LC End Date: 7 March 2008 IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Mostly fine except for a piece of unclear specification noted below and a few editorial nits. Caveat: I am not a security expert and this should not be taken as an endorsement of the security competence of the proposal. Comments: s3: The first part of the specification for MultipleSignatures is : > The fields in MultipleSignatures have the following meaning: > > - bodyHashAlg includes the digest algorithmIdentifier for the > referenced multiple-signatures attribute. > > - signAlg includes the signature algorithmIdentifier for the > referenced multiple-signatures attribute. > I am confused by the use of 'includes' here: Do these specs imply that the values of these fields are comma separated lists of all relevant alg identifiers for the signatures? An example with three signatures might clarify what is going on, but the spec should be clarified in any case, I think (but I may just not be sufficiently knowledgable about this sort of spec). Editorial: idnits reports a clean bill of health. Abstract: Expand CMS acronym. s5: s/in a singled/in a single/ s5.2: s/the rquire application/the required application/ s5.3, para 5: The first sentence > > If signatures are added for the support of [ESS] features, then the > fact that an outer layer signature can be treated as a non- > significant failure. > does not parse. Probably missing 'is invalid' or some such relating to outer layer signature. Appendix B: 'hashes CMS'??? Does not parse! B.1: s/is needed/are needed/ B.2 1/a/ii: s/Reistance/Resistance/ B.2 1/c/iii: s/success/successful/ B.2 2: Expand DER acronym. B.2: is not normative but uses SHOULD NOT. B.2 (2nd para on p18): s/that the attack/than the attack/ _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Gen-art review of draft-ietf-smime-multisig-04.txt Elwyn Davies
- RE: Gen-art review of draft-ietf-smime-multisig-0… Turner, Sean P.