Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Thu, 11 April 2019 07:46 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@huawei.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 D8778120289; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 00:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 0cOVP_hWOTbQ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 00:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDF34120287; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 00:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2A1C3854621B8E3CFF41; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:46:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by LHREML711-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:46:13 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 15:46:06 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <pkampana@cisco.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "spasm@ietf.org" <spasm@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08
Thread-Index: AQHU8Bq1oQ7TGHGGOkGrtE7ZCJppy6Y2lOvw
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 07:46:06 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEDCEC02@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <155486946127.19649.7242764557830648898@ietfa.amsl.com> <CY4PR11MB1527D5A7603721B0361C519AC92F0@CY4PR11MB1527.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR11MB1527D5A7603721B0361C519AC92F0@CY4PR11MB1527.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/LY66X0LgMjZBmSXCbKK_EbVrLbg>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 07:46:19 -0000

I am OK with the update.

Thanks,
Tianran

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) [mailto:pkampana@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 11:57 AM
> To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>om>; ops-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: spasm@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of
> draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08
> 
> Thank you Tianran.
> 
> > The normative and informative reference in this draft are not clear to me.
> I think that RFC8017 and RFC8174 should not be normative reference. And why
> some standard tack RFC are listed in informative reference?
> 
> Indeed RFC8017 and RFC8174 are Normative References. RFC8017 is Informational
> draft but we are keeping it in the Normative References even though idnits
> complains because we need a normative reference for RSASSA-PSS otherwise
> someone implementing our draft would not know RSASSA-PSS. RFC4056 does the
> same thing with RSASS-PSS v2.1. RFC8174 is Normative because we must be read
> to understand what the capital letters mean in our draft. It is normative
> in other standards like RFC8366 as well. We have some Informative References
> that are Standard RFCs. The reason we do that is because someone does not
> need to read them to understand or implement the proposed draft as per
> https://ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-reference
> s/
> 
> All the Editorial nits are fixed in the next iterations that will be pushed
> out soon.
> 
> Panos
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Spasm <spasm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou via
> Datatracker
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:11 AM
> To: ops-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: spasm@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
> draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@ietf.org
> Subject: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08
> 
> Reviewer: Tianran Zhou
> Review result: Has Issues
> 
> 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-pkix-shake-08 Intended Status:
> Standards Track
> 
> Summary:
> In general, this document is clear to me. I did not see any special operational
> or network management related issue. It's almost ready to be published. There
> are some issues and nits.
> 
> Issues:
> The normative and informative reference in this draft are not clear to me.
> I think that [RFC8017](Informational) and [RFC8174](BCP) should not be
> normative reference. And why some standard tack RFC are listed in informative
> reference?
> 
> Editorial:
> line 102: redundand -> redundant
> line 126,129: Deterministric -> Deterministic line 314: algorithsm ->
> algorithms line 378: subtitutions -> substitutions line 763,777:
> Determinstic -> Deterministic
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm