[lamps] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-x509-policy-graph-04: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-x509-policy-graph-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-x509-policy-graph/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this well-written document. I can’t say that I spent enough time
with the algorithm to be able to vouch for its correctness myself, but that’s
what subject matter area reviewers are for.

I sincerely hope that lamps is considering, or will consider, a bis of RFC
5280. It seems to me that the material in this document deserves to be
incorporated directly into the base specification, instead of sitting in an
update document that a naïve reader could accidentally miss. The same is true
of some of the other updates. But this is just me editorializing, I don’t
expect any changes to the present document.

I have one question, and a couple nits.

In the example associated with 5.3 (d)(2), should there be some language
telling me why bronze doesn’t appear in the figure, although gold and silver do?

Nits:

- in “If either (1) the value of explicit_policy variable is greater than
zero”,  it looks as though a definite article is needed there, i.e. “If either
(1) the value of the explicit_policy variable is greater than zero”. (Removing
the word “variable” would also make it grammatical.)

- s/ertificate/certificate/