Re: [pkix] Gen-art telechat review of draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-05

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

2985 is a normative reference in 5750 which is standards track
so I think we can safely claim precedent and I can put 2985 in the
downref registry if nobody objects.

Cheers,
S.

On 11/03/16 18:05, Elwyn Davies wrote:
> 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 wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-05.txt
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2016/03/11
> IETF LC End Date: 2016/03/09
> IESG Telechat date: 2016/03/17
> 
> Summary:  Ready with minor nits and a (new) downref issue for RFC 2985
> (importation of PKCS #9).  Thanks for addressing my comments on -04 at
> last call.
> 
> Major issues:
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> Downref issue: idnits identifies three downref issues:
> - RFC 5912 was in the previous version and is in the downref registry
> already, so needn't concern us.
> - RFC 2985 has been moved from Informative in -04 to Normative in -05. 
> Since RFC 2985 is a reproduction of a a external standard, I don't think
> there should be any issue here, but the reference probably ought to be
> normative, and should have been called out in the last call - apologies
> for failing to point this out in my LC review.
> -RFC 7107 is only used to flag the definition of the SMI Security for
> S/MIME Attributes registry.  I think this could safely be taken as
> informative.
> 
> Thus the only real issue is with RFC 2985.
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Abstract: Must not have references s/[RFC2985]/(RFC 2985)/
> 
> s3: Currently s3.1 states in the text that the maximum length of the
> DirectoryString is 255.  ss3.2 and 3.3 have this defined in the ASN.1
> but not in the text.  It would make things consistent if this was stated
> in para 2 of s3:
> s/defined as a DirectoryString/defined as a DirectoryString with maximum
> length 255/
> 
> s4, last para: s/(see [RFC7030], s3.7 second paragraph)/(see Section 3.7
> of [RFC3070])/
>