[lamps] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-22: (with COMMENT)

[Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-22: No Objection

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



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

Thank you for the work on this document.

I have a few minor comments, hopefully easy to fix; answers are appreciated.

Francesca

1. -----

   previous PKI management operation).  PKIProtection will contain a MAC
   value and the protectionAlg MAY be one of the options described in
   CMP Algorithms [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms].  The PasswordBasedMac

FP: I think the correct term here is MUST rather than MAY, otherwise this seem
to imply that the protectionAlg can be something different as well.

2. -----

   Note: In case several EC curves are supported, several id-ecPublicKey
   elements need to be given, one per named curve.

FP: I could not find id-ecPublicKey in RFC 4210, could you give more context
where this element is defined?

3. -----

Section 2.25 and 3.4 - IANA considerations

FP: Given that Section 4 does now a full update of the IANA considerations (as
a result from Paul's comment, which I believe was a necessary improvement), it
seems to me as Section 2.25 and 3.4 have become useless. I suggest to just
remove those to avoid the redundancy (and the risk for future updates that will
modify one section but not the other).

4. -----

   [RFC4210].  This document redirects to the new algorithm profile as
   specified in Appendix A.1 of CMP Algorithms
   [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms].

...

   For specifications of algorithm identifiers and respective
   conventions for conforming implementations, please refer to CMP
   Algorithms Appendix A.1 [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms].

FP: There is no Appendix A.1 of [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-algorithms]. Did you mean
Section 7?

5. -----

FP: Nits reports the following:

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2510' is defined on line 1580, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

RFC 2510 does appear in the document, but only in the section header, I would
suggest adding the reference in the text as well.