Re: [sidr] I-D Action: draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-02.txt

[Richard Hansen <[e-mail]>]

On 2015-05-21 17:08, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> You are missing some history here.  When this issue arose, the
> agreement was that the bis would address the OID only, and changes
> and comments were to be only those necessary to correct that
> problem.

OK.  To keep the scope of changes limited to the OID issue, ignore the
following from my list of issues:

Moderate:
 * errata not incorporated (though their status is still "Reported"...)
 * certification requests aren't mentioned everywhere they should be
Minor:
 * at the beginning of section 2, the reference to RFC4055 Section 5
   should be RFC3447 Section 8.2
Nice-to-haves:
 * replace "signed object" with "CMS signed object" to avoid ambiguity
 * add a Table of Contents
 * include informative references in the introduction
 * cite the algorithm agility RFC in section 5

-Richard


> 
> (I myself participated in that agreement and then exceeded the
> restriction in my own comments!  You, who were not in the working
> group at the time, have much less reason to know.)
> 
> --Sandy, speaking as working group chair
> 
> On May 20, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Richard Hansen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I did a careful review of this draft and sent detailed comments to
>> the authors off list.  Here is a summary of my comments for
>> everyone's reference:
>> 
>> Important issues:
>> 
>> * the reference to RFC6488 in the introduction was accidentally 
>> changed to RFC2119 * section 8 is incorrect --
>> sha256WithRSAEncryption does not violate the CMS RFCs
>> (implementations just choose to use rsaEncryption instead, which
>> has the same meaning in this context) * the OID and meaning of
>> rsaEncryption is not defined in this document, and there is no
>> normative reference to a definition
>> 
>> Moderate issues:
>> 
>> * section 2 is confusing (alternative wording sent to authors) *
>> errata not incorporated (though their status is still
>> "Reported"...) * certification requests aren't mentioned everywhere
>> they should be
>> 
>> Minor issues:
>> 
>> * many of the edits made by the RFC Editor are missing * at the
>> beginning of section 2, the reference to RFC4055 Section 5 should
>> be RFC3447 Section 8.2
>> 
>> Nice-to-haves:
>> 
>> * replace "signed object" with "CMS signed object" to avoid
>> ambiguity * add a Table of Contents * include informative
>> references in the introduction * cite the algorithm agility RFC in
>> section 5
>> 
>> -Richard
>> 
>> 
>> On 2015-05-15 15:22, [e-mail] wrote:
>>> 
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
>>> Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the
>>> Secure Inter-Domain Routing Working Group of the IETF.
>>> 
>>> Title           : The Profile for Algorithms and Key Sizes for
>>> use in the Resource Public Key Infrastructure Authors         :
>>> Geoff Huston George Michaelson Filename        :
>>> draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-02.txt Pages           : 7 Date
>>> : 2015-05-15
>>> 
>>> Abstract: This document specifies the algorithms, algorithms'
>>> parameters, asymmetric key formats, asymmetric key size and
>>> signature format for the Resource Public Key Infrastructure
>>> subscribers that generate digital signatures on certificates,
>>> Certificate Revocation Lists, and signed objects as well as for
>>> the Relying Parties that verify these digital signatures.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis/
>>> 
>>> There's also a htmlized version available at: 
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-02
>>> 
>>> A diff from the previous version is available at: 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-sidr-rfc6485bis-02
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>>> tools.ietf.org.
>>> 
>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: 
>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/