[lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12

Qin Wu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 08 May 2022 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9229EC157B42; Sun, 8 May 2022 05:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Qin Wu via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 8.1.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <165201257958.20747.11298264075079955264@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 05:22:59 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/_6Wv9PuI349eRhCFA33jonxZFjE>
Subject: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms-12
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
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: Sun, 08 May 2022 12:22:59 -0000

Reviewer: Qin Wu
Review result: Has Nits

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.

RFC4210 describes CMP protocol and specifies CMP algorithm use profile as part
of PKI Management Message profile in the appendix. This document describes CMP
algorithms and provides CMP algorithms classification and use profiles.

I believe this document is well written and ready for publication.

Major issue:
No

Minor issues:
1.One thing is not clear to me is the exact relation between RFC4210 and this
document. It seems this document separates CMP algorithm use profile discussion
from Appendix of RFC4210 and expands it as a new document. If the answer is
yes, I think it is worth clarifying this in the introduction. 2.Abstract
highlights this document focuses on describing the convention for using
algorithm with CMP. I feel most CMP algorithms use convention have already been
documented in other specifications or RFCs, e.g., SHA2,SHAKE,RSA, ECDSA, etc.
Therefore I am not sure abstract catches the essence of the content in this
document. I feel this document can be seen as recipe book or playbook for
developers. Maybe the abstract can be polished a little bit to reflect what it
is.