[lamps] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6211-update-00 (Ends 2026-09-15)

[Michael StJohns <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ -

Not sure why it compiles with the {} - that's read to mean the set 
containing the single value id-aa-CMSAlgorithmProtect OID rather than 
just the OID.

Let me take a look at the information object syntax and see what's up.

In any event, I don't think we use the {} notation for any other ATTRIBUTE.

What happens if you add the Attribute structure definition to what 
you're compiling?  I think that the ATTRIBUTE.&id stuff in the attribute 
structure will probably blow up if it sees the doubled {{}} that would 
result if you did strict substitution.

Mike




On 9/8/2026 16:59, Russ Housley wrote:
> Mike:
>
> Re comment 2: By the way, it compiles without the { } too.
>
> Russ
>
>> On Sep 8, 2026, at 4:50 PM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>>> On Sep 8, 2026, at 4:04 PM, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> While you're doing this to fix an error, would it make sense to 
>>> update the definition of aa-cmsAlgorithmProtection ?:
>>>
>>> aa-cmsAlgorithmProtection ATTRIBUTE ::= {
>>>    TYPE CMSAlgorithmProtection
>>>    COUNTS MAX 1
>>>    IDENTIFIED BY id-aa-CMSAlgorithmProtect
>>> }
>>>
>>> 1) The attribute is a single entry as defined in the text (nit)
>>
>> This could be added, but it does more than address the errata.
>>
>>> 2) I don't think there should be {} around 
>>> id-aa-CMSAlgorithmProtection (bug)
>>
>> The module in RFC 6211 compiles without error.
>>
>>> 3) The body text needs to match the ASN.1 module. 
>>> id-aa-CMSAlgorithmProtect vs id-aa-CMSAlgorithmProtection (bug)
>>
>> Yes, this was resolved in my last edit based on Corey's comment.
>>
>>> 4) Maybe do the entire document instead as the body text mostly 
>>> mis-matches the module and updating the module (except to fix (3) 
>>> above) is more painful?
>>
>> Sean needs to review as my co-author. Once he has done so, I'll post 
>> the -01 version so that you can see that the changes are straightforward.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/8/2026 15:24, Russ Housley wrote:
>>>> Thanks. I've corrected these in my edit buffer.  I'll post the -01 
>>>> version soon.
>>>>
>>>> Russ
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 8, 2026, at 2:47 PM, Corey Bonnell 
>>>>> <dev=[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> I reviewed draft-ietf-lamps-rfc6211-update-00. The document is 
>>>>> ready to proceed, modulo the following comments:
>>>>>
>>>>>  1. The OID names in the abstract and section 2
>>>>>     (id-aa-CMSAlgorithmProtection) are disjoint from Appendix A
>>>>>     (id-aa-CMSAlgorithmProtect). This document is a good
>>>>>     opportunity to align them all.
>>>>>  2. A few typos:
>>>>>      1. Abstract: "in definition" -> "in the definition"
>>>>>      2. Abstract: "alway" -> "always"
>>>>>      3. Section 4: "registr" -> "registry"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Corey
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Spasm mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Spasm mailing list [e-mail]
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email [e-mail]
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Spasm mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>