Re: [Last-Call] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-cose-countersign-06

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Elwyn, thank you for your review. I have entered a Discuss ballot for this document (since the IANA review has not yet concluded; I will lift it when IANA is OK.)

Lars


> On 2022-7-22, at 17:21, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-cose-countersign-06
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2022-07-22
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-10
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Almost ready with one minor issue and several nits.  I do not
> understand how it is decided what the count of bstr fields is which is needed
> to determine if the other_fields mechanism is invoked.  Are all the standard
> fields included?  And could other_fields be included in an example please?
> Constructing an example would be helpful for both author and users I think.
> 
> Major issues:
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> s3.3, description of 'other_fields':  I am confused as to which bstr's count
> towards the 'only two' condition.  All the fields after 'context' are encoded
> as bstr so are all these involved in the count?  Also I couldn't see an example
> which appeared to showcase how 'other_fields' is used.  This might well have
> helped.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Abstract:  Idnits is thoroughly confused by the document claiming to update RFC
> 8152 when it is actually updating an RFC that hasn't been published yet.  Given
> that rfc8152bis (RFC-to-be 9052) hasn't been published yet, I wonder if a note
> about countersigning could be added into that document. But in any case  this
> document updates RFC 9052.
> 
> General: Use of " rather than ' for quoted strings. [s1.3 (6 places), s3.3 (2
> places)]
> 
> s1.3: s/Byte is a synonym for octet./"Byte" is a synonym for "octet" in this
> document./
> 
> s1, para 3: I think this needs a little expansion:  "the inclusion of more of
> values in the countersignature".  At least s/of more of values/of the content
> of additional fields/  (if I understand correctly).
> 
> s2, para 3: s/Details on version 2/Details of version 2/
> 
> s3, para 2: s/This is same structure/This is of the same structure/
> 
> s3.3, para 1: s/takes in countersignature/takes in the countersignature/
> 
> s5.2, last para: s/"(Deprecated by [[This Document]]"./"(Deprecated by [[This
> Document]])"./ [Missing closing bracket.]
> 
> s7.1: For the record there seems to be some lack of clarity as to whether there
> are two or three different languages supported.  The 'Languages' line says 3
> languages but only mentions Java and C#.  Further on in 'Testing', Java, C# and
> C are mentioned.  Since this section will be removed before publication it is
> not of great importance but would be good to get it right.  I couldn't see a C
> implementation in the cose-wg repository.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art