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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

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

Kent


> On Feb 1, 2024, at 6:34 AM, Lars Eggert via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Lars Eggert 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types-29
> 
> CC @larseggert
> 
> Thanks to Dale R. Worley for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/AmEmW-zWeMAEWMxu8-Czt4ZB_cE).
> 
> ## Nits
> 
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
> did with these suggestions.
> 
> ### Typos
> 
> #### Section 2.1.2, paragraph 1
> ```
> -    The following diagram illustrates the hierarchal relationship amongst
> +    The following diagram illustrates the hierarchical relationship amongst
> +                                                  ++
> ```

Now using “hierarchical"


> ### Outdated references
> 
> Reference `[RFC3447]` to `RFC3447`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8017` (this may
> be on purpose).

Already fixed.


> Reference `[RFC7525]` to `RFC7525`, which was obsoleted by `RFC9325` (this may
> be on purpose).

Reference already removed.


> Reference `[RFC6125]` to `RFC6125`, which was obsoleted by `RFC9525` (this may
> be on purpose).

Reference removed due to not being used anymore.


> ### Grammar/style
> 
> #### Section 1.1, paragraph 5
> ```
> placeholder value for binary data has has been base64 encoded. This placeho
>                                   ^^^^^^^
> ```
> Possible typo: you repeated a word.
> 
> #### Section 2.3, paragraph 59
> ```
> ed-value-format' based identity MUST by set (e.g., cms-encrypted-data-format
>                                     ^^
> ```
> Did you maybe mean "buy" or "be"?

Typo fixed.


> #### Section 2.3, paragraph 59
> ```
> ed-value-format' based identity MUST by set (e.g., cms-enveloped-data-format
>                                     ^^
> ```
> Did you maybe mean "buy" or "be"?

Typo fixed.


Thanks!
Kent


> ## Notes
> 
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].
> 
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
> [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
> 
> 
>