[lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07

David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com> Fri, 27 April 2018 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi@apple.com>
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 D5BB012D86D; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 20:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi@apple.com>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: spasm@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.79.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152480069184.6083.13015201919417586774@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 20:44:51 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/aIlg0ITNUeUjIPA1wsMiqbk1TEA>
Subject: [lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 03:44:52 -0000

Reviewer: David Schinazi
Review result: Ready

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


Document: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07
Reviewer: David Schinazi
Review Date: 2018-04-26
IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-27
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

    This document is clearly written and does a nice job of explaining the
    rationale and historical context of the decisions it made.

Major issues:
    None noticed during this review

Minor issues:
    I was slightly confused by the description of AuthEnvelopedData in 2.4.4:
    it seems to describe data protected by a symmetric AEAD but then mentions
    asymmetric keys. But this could be due to my lack of expertise in S/MIME.

Nits/editorial comments:
    I believe the RFC2119 reference should also mention RFC8174.