Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-16

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Mon, 05 January 2015 14:49 UTC

From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>
References: <sjmoaqqtgmb.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412292147350.1509@keflavik>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 09:49:37 -0500
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412292147350.1509@keflavik> (Jan Pechanec's message of "Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:53:37 -0800 (PST)")
Message-ID: <sjmsifpp9j2.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/ZQPgF0QmuOYvOG3vzdCRyu-IOfI
Cc: Darren.Moffat@oracle.com, secdir@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-16
Precedence: list

Thanks.

Your changes look good to me.

Happy New Year.

-derek

Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com> writes:

> On Fri, 26 Dec 2014, Derek Atkins wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>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 with the intent of improving
>>security requirements and considerations in IETF drafts.  Comments
>>not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the
>>IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
>>comments just like any other last call comments.
>>
>>I believe this document has no issues.
>
> 	dear Derek, thank you for your time to review the document.  
> My comments are inline below.
>
>>Editorial comments:
>>
>>In section 1:
>>
>>   A subset of existing PKCS#11 structure members and object attributes
>>   was chosen believed to be sufficient in uniquely identifying a
>>   PKCS#11 token, storage object, or library in a configuration file, on
>>   ...
>>
>>This sentence is not just long but also awkward.  The phrase "was
>
> 	I agree.  I've simplified that in the following way:
>
> A subset of existing PKCS#11 structure members and object attributes
> was chosen to uniquely identify a PKCS#11 storage object, token,
> slot, or library in a configuration file, on a command line, or in a
> configuration property of something else.  Should there be a need for
> a more complex information exchange on PKCS#11 entities a different
> means of data marshalling should be chosen accordingly.
>
>>chosen believed to be.." seems to be missing a conjunction and
>>possibly a verb.  Maybe this was meant to be two sentences that got
>>smushed together?
>>
>>
>>In section 3.3:
>>
>>   PKCS#11 specification imposes various limitations on the value of
>>   attributes, be it a more restrictive character set for the "serial"
>>   ...
>>
>>I think you need to start this sentence with an article, i.e. "The
>>PKCS#11 specification imposes..."
>
> 	I've fixed that, thank you.
>
>>(I'll note that I did not validate the ABNF).
>
> 	there was a bug there and the grammar in the latest working 
> version of a new draft 17 was verified by:
>
> 	http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi
>
> 	I've also attached the latest working version of draft 17.
>
> 	best regards, Jan.

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord@MIT.EDU                        PGP key available

[secdir] sec-dir review of draft-pechanec-pkcs11u… Derek Atkins
Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-pechanec-pkc… Jan Pechanec
Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-pechanec-pkc… Derek Atkins