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>; 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
- [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lam… Tianran Zhou via Datatracker
- Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf… Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)
- Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf… Tianran Zhou