Re: [lamps] [Spasm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-10.txt

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Wed, 07 June 2017 06:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 D573E126D46 for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 23:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 QCp0JC8DfrdJ for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 23:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [108.5.242.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0EA2B127337 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 23:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1034) id EFC177A3309; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 06:53:51 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 06:53:51 +0000
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: SPASM <spasm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20170607065351.GL22954@mournblade.imrryr.org>
Reply-To: spasm@ietf.org
References: <149521958261.27235.13262265548463695364@ietfa.amsl.com> <50D23BF4-65DA-4895-B181-C4D0F2004E78@vigilsec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50D23BF4-65DA-4895-B181-C4D0F2004E78@vigilsec.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/EZqtVmKcEPAwRXgE-iwm7u3hU4M>
Subject: Re: [lamps] [Spasm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-10.txt
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, 07 Jun 2017 06:53:55 -0000

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 04:11:52PM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:

> I think that the newly posted I-D contains the agreed approach.  Does anyone think otherwise?

I think that the technical issues are (mostly?) resolved.  However,
the exposition still needs work.  I've sent out the first part of
my review.  I'll send the second part when I've had a chance to
finish reading and responding to the remaining sections.

The most significant issue so far is that in trying to not provide
a full address ABNF, and instead specify deltas to existing grammars
in other RFCs, the document's terminology and clarity suffer a
great deal.  Perhaps it is time to just import the relevant
definitions by value rather than by reference, and optimize for
clarity, at the cost of some repetiion of the content of prior
RFCs.

-- 
	Viktor