Re: [Sframe] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-sframe-enc-06

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 3:54 PM Martin Thomson via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Martin Thomson has requested publication of draft-ietf-sframe-enc-06 as
> Proposed Standard on behalf of the SFRAME working group.
>
> Please verify the document's state at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sframe-enc/
>

Hello all,

Sorry this has taken me so long to get through.  Overall I think it's quite
well done and what I've managed to come up with is mostly minor.  So,
here's what I've got so far; rather than have you keep waiting on more
comments or questions, I'm going to request Last Call now in parallel with
me finishing my review.  We can deal with these alongside any Last Call
feedback and directorate reviews if you like.

In no particular order:

Section 8:

This kind of reads like at one point you were asking for multiple
registries, but only one remains.  Some of the grammar mismatches should be
tidied up.

Per RFC 8126, a "Specification Required" registry strongly encourages
advice to the Designated Expert about what one should consider when
deciding if the reference being offered is satisfactory, but no such advice
is present here.  Do we need any?

Section 4.4.1:

I'm a stickler for correct use of SHOULD, so I'm going to test a couple of
these.  In this section, there's a SHOULD mark keys one way or the other,
but never both.  Since SHOULD allows a choice, is there ever a reason to
mark a key as both?  Or should that really be a MUST?

Section 4.4.4:

Same SHOULD question.

Section 9.3:

Are there any informative references that might be offered regarding the
mitigations suggested here?

Appendix A:

Thanks for including this.

Section 7.5:

The first bullet appears to be one sentence that's been broken into two.

-MSK