Re: [Last-Call] [EXTERNAL] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-update-04

[Jim Fenton <[e-mail]>]

Himanshu,

Yes, the -05 revision addresses all of my comments. Thanks for making 
those changes.

-Jim

On 4 Apr 2024, at 12:00, Himanshu Sharma wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>    In case the updated ID was missed, Please have a look as It 
> satisfies
> all the feedback and suggestions provided by you.
>
> -Thanks
> Himanshu
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 12:13 PM Himanshu Sharma 
> <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jim
>>     Thanks for all the suggestions and pointing you the IDNITS 
>> errors.
>> I have changed the content according to your suggestions, corrected 
>> the
>> reference, and moved RFC 5912 to the informative reference section 
>> from
>> normative reference section.
>> Russ has verified the ASN.1 module and it compiles fine.
>> Now this draft has 0 errors reported from IDNITS.
>> Meanwhile I have reached out to Joseph Salowey and am working with 
>> him to
>> address the feedback he has provided.
>>
>> Himanshu
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 3:12 PM Himanshu Sharma 
>> <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Jim for your time to review the Draft.
>>>  I will work on the suggestions and update the draft accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 11:04 AM Jim Fenton via Datatracker <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reviewer: Jim Fenton
>>>> Review result: Almost Ready
>>>>
>>>> I am the designated ART ART reviewer for
>>>> draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-update-04.
>>>>
>>>> Status: Almost ready
>>>>
>>>> Comments:
>>>>
>>>> Section 1, suggest replacing "[RFC8954] enforce the maximum" to
>>>> "[RFC8954]
>>>> limits the maximum"
>>>>
>>>> Section 2, suggest replacing "enforce" with "limit".
>>>>
>>>> Section 2.1 paragraph 1 can be deleted since this is replacing 
>>>> RFC8954
>>>> in its
>>>> entirety.
>>>>
>>>> Section 2.1 paragraph 3: "An OCSP client that implements this 
>>>> document
>>>> SHOULD
>>>> use a minimum length of 32 octets..." while RFC 8954 says, "Newer 
>>>> OCSP
>>>> clients
>>>> that support this document MUST use a length of 32 octets..." It 
>>>> seems
>>>> like
>>>> this requirement has been weakened; is there a reason for that? 
>>>> Also in
>>>> that
>>>> paragraph, rather than "in excess of what is permitted by RFC 8954"
>>>> suggest
>>>> saying "in excess of the limit of 32 octets that was specified in 
>>>> RFC
>>>> 8954."
>>>>
>>>> Section 2.1 paragraph 4: replace "...MUST accept Nonce octets 
>>>> length of
>>>> at
>>>> least 16 octets..." with "...MUST accept Nonce lengths of at least 
>>>> 16
>>>> octets..."
>>>>
>>>> Section 2.1 paragraph 5: replace "Nonce octet length" with "Nonce 
>>>> length"
>>>>
>>>> In the example, the object identifier, in addition to Offset and 
>>>> Length,
>>>> is in
>>>> decimal.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have the expertise in ASN.1 to fully review Appendix A; 
>>>> hopefully
>>>> another reviewer can check that.
>>>>
>>>> IDNITS points out that you have a normative reference to RFC 5912, 
>>>> which
>>>> is
>>>> informational. I'm not sure the reference is really normative, 
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>