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

Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com> Tue, 30 December 2014 05:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7662C1A0406; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:53:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 waZxfhTaLcmp; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EEF91A0383; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:53:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from acsinet21.oracle.com (acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id sBU5re4A011282 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Dec 2014 05:53:41 GMT
Received: from aserz7021.oracle.com (aserz7021.oracle.com [141.146.126.230]) by acsinet21.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sBU5rc5Q013585 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Dec 2014 05:53:39 GMT
Received: from abhmp0020.oracle.com (abhmp0020.oracle.com [141.146.116.26]) by aserz7021.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sBU5rcSD013579; Tue, 30 Dec 2014 05:53:38 GMT
Received: from keflavik.us.oracle.com (/10.132.148.214) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:53:38 -0800
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:53:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>
X-X-Sender: jpechane@keflavik
To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
In-Reply-To: <sjmoaqqtgmb.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1412292147350.1509@keflavik>
References: <sjmoaqqtgmb.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (GSO 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-570397931-1419918818=:1509"
X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237]
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/o2-PR9QMGHQdRnQu_tWnf3QVeMw
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 04:21:18 -0800
Cc: Darren.Moffat@oracle.com, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-pechanec-pkcs11uri-16
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 05:53:48 -0000

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.

-- 
Jan Pechanec <jan.pechanec@oracle.com>