Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07

Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> Wed, 02 May 2018 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B282F126C22; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63pxZu3KbehS; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.augustcellars.com (augustcellars.com [50.45.239.150]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C07E12DA0A; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jude (73.180.8.170) by mail2.augustcellars.com (192.168.0.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1347.2; Wed, 2 May 2018 11:51:53 -0700
From: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
To: 'Zitao Wang' <wangzitao@huawei.com>, ops-dir@ietf.org
CC: spasm@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis.all@ietf.org
References: <152385923510.20981.12612336145725004062@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <152385923510.20981.12612336145725004062@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 11:54:22 -0700
Message-ID: <052001d3e246$fdfbc4c0$f9f34e40$@augustcellars.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGVTOIpwFEyO1muP1gGUK18Ogb2GKSYgsyA
Content-Language: en-us
X-Originating-IP: [73.180.8.170]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/8jOyPDYMi-EaFokiK8WYqUcBA2c>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is a venue for discussion of doing Some Pkix And SMime \(spasm\) work." <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 18:54:34 -0000

I have published a -08 with these changes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zitao Wang <wangzitao@huawei.com>
> Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 11:14 PM
> To: ops-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: spasm@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis.all@ietf.org
> Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07
> 
> Reviewer: Zitao Wang
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate’s
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.
> These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
> aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are 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.
> 
> Document reviewed:  draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This document defines Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
> (S/MIME) version 4.0.  S/MIME provides a consistent way to send and
> receive secure MIME data.  Digital signatures provide authentication,
> message integrity, and non-repudiation with proof of origin. Encryption
> provides data confidentiality.
>  Compression can be used to reduce data size.  This document obsoletes RFC
> 5751.
> 
> Firstly, this document list a set of encryption algorithm, but a lot of them miss
> references, it difficult to understanding, especially for the reader who may
> lack of the encryption knowledges. For example:
> 
>  Section 1.5:
> 
>  s/key wrapping algorithm/key wrapping algorithm[rfc3394]
> 
>  s/Diffie-Hellman (DH) algorithm/Diffie-Hellman (DH) algorithm [rfc2631]
> 
>  s/RSA public key algorithm/RSA public key algorithm [RFC3447]  Section 2.2:
> 
>  s/RSA PKCS#1 v1.5/RSA PKCS#1 v1.5 [RFC2313]

All except the first is done.  I think that the text is sufficiently descriptive.

> 
> And there are some terminologies or abbreviations which are used without
> explaining, especially for some first appear. For example:
> 
>   Section 2.2.
> 
>   s/ECDSA/Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA)

This is on the RFC abbreviation list

> 
>   s/EdDSA/Edwards-curve Digital Signature Algorithm (EdDSA)

Changed, although I left DSA along as it is on the RFC list.

> 
> Other nits:
> 
>   Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2138 (Obsoleted by RFC 2865)

Should have been 2183

> 
>   Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4288 (Obsoleted by RFC 6838
Fixed

Jim