Re: [kitten] Shepherd review: draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-07

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Matt Rogers wrote:

> Hi,
>
> During my review of draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-07, the idnits
> checker brought up the following issues:
>
>  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
>   -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
>   ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC4556]), which it
>      shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of
> the
>      documents in question.
>
>
>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>   -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
>   -- The document date (May 23, 2016) is 147 days in the past.  Is this
>      intentional?


These two seem to be valid warnings, though the "147 days in the past" is
mostly just the chairs' fault.

>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
>   -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
>      (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
> references
>      to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)
>
>   -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 224
>      'cusec        [0] INTEGER (0..999999),...'

The idnits checker doesn't like our ASN.1 explicit tag values; there's
nothing we can do other than ignore the nits alerts.

>   == Missing Reference: 'This RFC' is mentioned on line 261, but not
>      defined
> '| 150  | PA_AS_FRESHNESS | [This RFC] |...'

This one can probably be ignored as well.  There might be some magic text
that will have the idnits checker ignore the self-reference, but I don't
know what it is.

>   ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5349
>
>
>      Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 6 comments
> (--).
>
> An updated document with these corrections, or some comments on these
> for justification of leaving them be would be helpful.

An updated document would be nice, but the needed changes are small
enough that in my opinion they could be left as RFC Editor notes.

-Ben