Re: [saag] AD Sponsorship of draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Thanks to Sean and Tobias for their reviews.

As discussed by Carl in a previous response, item (0) in Sean's review is not a problem.  No change there.

In the -02 version of the document, all but one of the rest were addressed.  Sean said:

> Since the ExpandedWantBacks are All, New, and ERS might consider
> reorganizing them in the ASN to match that pattern.

The AllWantBacks is imported, so it necessarily comes at the top.  Then, NewWantBacks and ERSWantBacks are in the order listed.  If a change is needed, I'm not seeing it.

Russ


> On Jun 20, 2021, at 4:25 AM, <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I took a review/look at this update as well. 
> It has been a while since I last worked on ERS, so am a bit rusty...
> But reviewed and no problems as far as I can tell. 
> 
> Best regards, Tobias
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: saag <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Sean Turner
> Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 11:04 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [saag] AD Sponsorship of draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules
> 
> Roman,
> 
> I have but one point to raise and then some cosmetic nits (cosmetic because
> compilers ignore whitespace).
> 
> 0) Point to Raise:
> 
> re: AllWantBacks. I am not entirely sure whether what is there for
> swb-ers-all WANT-BACK merely defines the new value or whether it also adds
> it to the list of available AllWantBacks.  AllWantBacks is imported from RFC
> 5912:
> 
> AllWantBacks WANT-BACK ::= {
>     WantBackSet | ACertWantBackSet | AnyWantBackSet, ...
> }
> 
> To add swb-ers-all to the list, I wonder whether merely defining it is
> enough. Is there something more that needs to be done to get it into the
> list as the fourth option?
> 
> 1) Cosmetic Nits:
> 
> Header:
> 
> s/New ASN.1 Modules for the Evidence Recor /New ASN.1 Modules for the
> Evidence Record
> 
> s2 (remove space, add space):
> 
> s/{ v1(1) } ,/{ v1(1) },
> s/AttributeSet{{ERSAttrSet}}/AttributeSet {{ERSAttrSet}}
> 
> s3:
> 
> Since the ExpandedWantBacks are All, New, and ERS might consider
> reorganizing them in the ASN to match that pattern.
> 
> s (fix indention of evidence record)/
> EvidenceRecordWantBack ::= SEQUENCE {
>  targetWantBack  WANT-BACK.&id ({ExpandedWantBacks}),
>    evidenceRecord EvidenceRecord OPTIONAL } / EvidenceRecordWantBack ::=
> SEQUENCE {
>  targetWantBack  WANT-BACK.&id ({ExpandedWantBacks}),
>  evidenceRecord EvidenceRecord OPTIONAL }
> 
> s/{id-swb 16 }/{ id-swb 16 }
> s/{id-swb 17 }/{ id-swb 17 }
> s/{id-swb 18 }/{ id-swb 18 }
> s/{id-swb 19 }/{ id-swb 19 }
> s/{id-swb 20 }/{ id-swb 20 }
> 
>> On May 14, 2021, at 16:45, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi!
>> 
>> Per the community interest and dispatch result at IETF 110 [1], I am AD
> sponsoring draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules [2].
>> 
>> I welcome early feedback or reviews on this document.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Roman
>> 
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-110-secdispatch/
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> saag mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
> 
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
> 
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag