Re: [lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk-05
Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Tue, 06 August 2019 20:59 UTC
Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 E928512007A for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 wuZZ72QGk4nn for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D09C712006A for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA8A300AE2 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:40:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ZJHJMBAtTpm8 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:39:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (unknown [138.88.156.37]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 354D330065E; Tue, 6 Aug 2019 16:39:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <156450924572.14301.5205142476827606126@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 16:59:15 -0400
Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, LAMPS WG <spasm@ietf.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3FB53255-8CAD-4A76-B264-78AA447EFD0B@vigilsec.com>
References: <156450924572.14301.5205142476827606126@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/BLj8n-UARZh3IAWyzYLUoljL4y0>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk-05
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 20:59:21 -0000
Robert: > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk-05 > Reviewer: Robert Sparks > Review Date: 2019-07-30 > IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-06 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: Essentially ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but with an > issue to address before publication. > > Issue: The instructions for IANA are unclear. IANA has to infer what to add to > the registries. I think they _can_ infer what to do for the IANA-MOD registry. > It's harder (though still possible) to guess what to do for IANA-SMIME. They > also have to infer the structure of the new registry this document intends to > create. Explicit would be better. Also, the document anticipates the currently > non-existing anchor to the new registry in the references (security-smime-13). > That generally should also be a tbd to be filled by IANA when the anchor is > actually created. Based on the summary of actions that IANA produced during Last Call, they understood the current text. That said, I will try to be more clear. One object identifier for the ASN.1 module in the Section 5 was assigned in the SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifiers (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) [IANA-MOD] registry: id-mod-cms-ori-psk-2019 OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) mod(0) TBD0 } One new registry was created for Other Recipient Info Identifiers within the SMI Security for S/MIME Mail Security (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16) [IANA-SMIME] registry: id-ori OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) TBD1 } Two assignments were made in the new SMI Security for Other Recipient Info Identifiers (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.TBD1) [IANA-ORI] registry with references to this document: id-ori-keyTransPSK OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) id-ori(TBD1) 1 } id-ori-keyAgreePSK OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) id-ori(TBD1) 2 } I have changed the reference to #security-smime-TBD1, which matches the to-be-assigned value in the IANA Considerations. > Nits/editorial comments: > > Section 5, 1st paragraph, last sentence: "make use fo" should be "makes use of" Yes. That was caught by another review. Already corrected. > Section 9, 1st sentence : "in the Section 5" should be "in Section 6". (That's > two changes - the removal of a word, and a correction to the section number). Good catch. Fixed. > Micronit: In the introduction, you say "can be invulnerable to an attacker". > "invulnerable" is maybe stronger than you mean? Roman thought that was too strong as well, I suggest: ... In this way, today's CMS-protected communication can be resistant to an attacker with a large-scale quantum computer. Thanks for the vaery careful reading, Russ
- [lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lam… Robert Sparks via Datatracker
- Re: [lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf… Russ Housley