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

[Jan Pechanec <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>