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