[lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08

Tianran Zhou via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 10 April 2019 04:11 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 54725120364; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 21:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Tianran Zhou via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: spasm@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.95.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <155486946127.19649.7242764557830648898@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 21:11:01 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/e-NJPO27plkYqtDcSYfXZzLDxvQ>
Subject: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 04:11:01 -0000

Reviewer: Tianran Zhou
Review result: Has Issues

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.

Document reviewed: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08
Intended Status:  Standards Track

In general, this document is clear to me. I did not see any special operational
or network management related issue. It's almost ready to be published. There
are some issues and nits.

The normative and informative reference in this draft are not clear to me.
I think that [RFC8017](Informational) and [RFC8174](BCP) should not be
normative reference. And why some standard tack RFC are listed in informative

line 102: redundand -> redundant
line 126,129: Deterministric -> Deterministic
line 314: algorithsm -> algorithms
line 378: subtitutions -> substitutions
line 763,777: Determinstic -> Deterministic