[lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 02 July 2018 20:52 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, spasm@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153056475779.16504.16273523283477340877.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 13:52:37 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/brZvuNgu4jdeLL13rO_LwtSpED0>
Subject: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-10: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to everyone who put work into updating this document. I have one comment
that is either substantive or me just being confused, and several editorial
nits.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.5.3.2:

>  The values to be placed in the micalg parameter SHOULD be from the
>  following:
>
>   Algorithm Value Used
>   MD5       md5
>   SHA-1     sha-1
>   SHA-224   sha-224
>   SHA-256   sha-256
>   SHA-384   sha-384
>   SHA-512   sha-512
>   Any other (defined separately in algorithm profile or "unknown" if
>             not defined)

The example then goes on to demonstrate the use of "micalg=sha-1".  This is
probably a misunderstanding on my part, but I thought that this document was
intending to mark MD5 and SHA-1 as historic for digesting content (cf. §1.7
and §B.1). Wouldn't that mean they should be annotated as deprecated in some
way here? I would have also expected the example to use sha-256 or sha-512.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.2:

>  -  .  SHOULD support RSASSA-PSS with SHA-256.

There appears to be an extra "." at the beginning of this bullet

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.1:

>  S/MIME is used to secure MIME entities.  A MIME message is composed
>  of a MIME header and a MIME body, the body can consist of a single
>  part or of multiple parts.

Nit: "...MIME body. The body can..."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.3:

>  The
>  Enveloped-Only structure does not support authenticated symmetric
>  algorithms, use the .Authenticated Enveloped structure for these
>  algorithms.

Two nits: "...symmetric algorithms. Use the Authenticated..."
                                  ^        ^
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§6:

>  S/MIME implementations almost universally use ephemeral-static rather
>  than static-static key agreement and do not use a shared secret for
>  encryption, this means that the first precondition is not met.

Nit: "...encryption. This means..."

[lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5… Adam Roach
Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-… Jim Schaad
Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-… Adam Roach
Re: [lamps] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-… Jim Schaad