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

[Matt Rogers <[e-mail]>]

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?


  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),...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 225
     'ctime        [1] KerberosTime,...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 228
     'nonce        [2] INTEGER (0..4294967295),...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 231
     'paChecksum   [3] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line
     236
'freshnessToken     [4] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,...'

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

  ** 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.

Regards,
Matt