[secdir] Secdir review of draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules-02

Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com> Thu, 29 July 2021 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86F483A1103; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 23:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s4i8I2C32PJ1; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 23:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd34.google.com (mail-io1-xd34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9610E3A1100; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 23:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd34.google.com with SMTP id j21so5576857ioo.6; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 23:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Nb1LXYS/eA8iwOtxgcYrzYiYs320T8sL58JkdhjO2G8=; b=tX2f5kGaTaH7YiOMmuN2TpNkfztUE2lz1EeDg1/ktqEeF9ER/9hPA4Gk9PjfHGlNap olhTyj7JH927HSjzU7nUfxL4+Kgm0+BTrQyUlptNUMoDe6CxuersKJqoR4ttk8+Aavip NCBkPSnRELWfg4ieu2UvkWQBngj0e0n4l0ILUfhayG6wiM0XhX2ZMBSQogvGVttmP6UE mwT32UX/fGKNAtueKiar8yzWa7m47wTS2x1NguiS+zwaX6r3K6lPhdUymTMl+o/c8mtp Ft1/wg0h3irZp4RmVRfWuMcdVqAsdWHU4uHOkKj0EyImaEh8yntKMa41uP6toYrkQ7Tf O1ZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Nb1LXYS/eA8iwOtxgcYrzYiYs320T8sL58JkdhjO2G8=; b=R2WnhOifgedhxQyEwsNyYnFojVD4H+GgN8/fWOn3PE2YxDHC4KZzNx5F6W3J9L5kj3 GS1lnp4FAd21VOhu+fpQzeHqMQO95ECOQ0WSXqjNT+FXm4hLDRv5AxeCDX+E0nMMvBJu vSkgrNPTZPAiA1Z6daMcrlBGNnzlpcU9Nml3bo0RR3Zc9ui3SArYfAyAzWML1FqNoBVZ ZlZVBv/LUcpDEDioDcoo73V9C8MRzXAQXyFsv8F+75AcMCMVRURYsR9AABmZdaBX/1H7 NL3PW38TJMZY95xUJZFguGsC7rGSV1yavFOXugh5iqiCKXIBPkI/QiDoocK4hr5iCjlJ npFw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Fs8MMaEi6EjoutjZ5o4mB39yroiX2PfyeRsHAve/dC7A3sS4P lfq+a262Af97Z8LvakliGOFLz5JAWujxZnH3QTF0X+9Jax4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyy1nk+GYzbK8be8Ki7TfIxic2tCfW/6i6FW4/cUzxh6T8kFhaIBCUfo79P8zl8t1q0BFnCIV9uVv8NVBVD7ug=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:db18:: with SMTP id t24mr2750567ioc.163.1627538830236; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 23:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Radia Perlman <radiaperlman@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 23:06:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFOuuo4ua4PMmWcpJr1yMOGHViwCPBmY=BARBhmf5Vt7YCPxQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d59f5005c83ce915"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/FSc3XkGb_R8hGakP057SiIZwZ60>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules-02
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 06:07:15 -0000

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area
directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.



The summary of the review is Ready



This document is intended to be Informational.



This document gives alternative ASN.1 specifications for RFC5276 (Evidence
Record Syntax). These alternative specifications are intended to produce
the same bits-on-the wire as the originals but follow newer ASN.1
specifications (2002 vs. 1988); follow the conventions established in
RFC5911, RFC5912, and RFC6268; and are freestanding rather than referencing
specifications from non-RFCs.



I’m not qualified to judge whether the translation was done correctly, but
the authors are.



Radia