Re: [netconf] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: (with COMMENT)

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Francesca,

Thank you for you valuable comments.
Please find below my responses.

Kent


> On Jan 31, 2024, at 8:04 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thank you for the work on this document.
> 
> Section 1.4:
>> value for binary data has has been base64 encoded. This placeholder
> 
> The document is missing a reference to RFC 4648 (and specify which encoding,
> Section 4 or 5). I assume that this is the same as for RFC 7950 which states:
> 
>   Binary values are encoded with the base64 encoding scheme (see
>   Section 4 in [RFC4648]).
> 
> Even if this is meant to use and extend 7950 (as specified later in 2.1.3), it
> would be good to repeat the above and reference 4648 early on, rather than
> relying on the reader investigating capabilities. If you don't want to do it in
> Section 1.4, I suggest the reference to 4648 and explicitly stating the base64
> encoding should be at least added to 2.1.3.

This is the same comment in your other review of the “crypto-types” draft 
(two reviews for the same draft?), to which I responded that I made the
update in all nine drafts.


> RFC 3447 has been obsoleted by 8017. I assume this is an error, given that the
> doc uses "PKCS #1: RSA Cryptography Specifications Version 2.2" which is
> actually 8017, rather than version 2.1.

Fixed - thanks!

Kent