Re: [lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-04

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

Dale,

Thanks for the review.  Version -05 should address these:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku/
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-04&url2=draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-05&difftype=--html

spt

> On Aug 7, 2022, at 15:45, Dale Worley via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Dale Worley
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> 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-documentsigning-eku-04
> Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
> Review Date:  2022-08-07
> IETF LC End Date:  2022-08-11
> IESG Telechat date:  (none)
> 
> Summary:
> 
>    This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
>    should be fixed before publication.
> 
> The technical content of the draft is quite good, but there is an
> editorially critical issue regarding the allocation of the
> identifiers.  There are three places where "to be done" identifiers
> are specified:
> 
> 3.1.  Including the Extended Key Purpose for Document Signing in
> 
>     id-kp-documentSigning  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { id-kp XX }
> 
> 8.2.  Informative References
> 
> Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module
>     DocSignEKU { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
>       security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
>       id-mod-docsign-eku(TBD1) }
> 
>     id-kp-documentSigning OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD2 }
> 
> However, section 7 "IANA Considerations" does not explicitly mention
> any of these substitutions.  Compare with
> e.g. draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly10305.  Section 7 does say
> that assignments need to be made to the appropriate registries but
> provides no reference or "Note to the Editor" what substitutions need
> to be made in the text.  Also, "XX" must be the same as "TBD2", but
> that is not specified.
> 
> There is also a redundant specification at the end of section 7,
> 
>   No further action is necessary by IANA.
> 
> Given that the previous sentences in the paragraph state that there
> are two actions and then enumerate them, adding a statement that there
> are no others is redundant.
> 
> [END]
> 
> 
>