[lamps] Review draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk-00

[Jim Schaad <[e-mail]>]

Abstract:  Needs to be re-worded " if existing syntax the does not
accommodated them."

Section 1: Needs to be re-worded "if current syntax the does not
accommodated them."
  
Section 1: Needs to be re-worded: " by mixing with a strong PSK with the
output"

Section 2 -  Which key? "generates the key"  Pushing something from the next
two sentences forward would be useful.  Not talking about generating the
ephemeral DH key.

Section 2 - you have not introduced the KDK yet and now I am creating one.
Perhaps a simple discussion on how what happens is that an additional key
wrap is inserted using ...

Section 2 - It would be nice to add a sentence where you say that you are
introducing two new management techniques to say that they are agnostic
towards the underlying key management technique.

Section 3 - I am wondering if it would make more sense to use the
KEKIdentifier structure instead of just having an octet string for the
PreSharedKeyIdentifier type?

Section 4 - This is twice that I have read this and am unclear what we are
doing.  The sentence "private key and recipient's public key to generate a
pairwise key"  From this and from information in my mind I am not completely
clear that this is the DH pairwise key or something else.

Summary:  Is it your thought that I should be able to implement this
document as written?  A the moment I do not believe that this is possible.
Do we need to define how the KDF function operates?

Jim