Re: [lamps] Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis-08: (with COMMENT)

Deb:

The ASN.1 is in RFC 6960:

	ResponderID ::= CHOICE {
	   byName              [1] Name,
	   byKey               [2] KeyHash }

Is this the text?
~~~
   Clients MUST be able to identify OCSP responder certificates using
   the byKey field and SHOULD be able to identify OCSP responder
   certificates using the byName field of the ResponseData.ResponderID
   choices.

   Older responders which provide backward compatibility with [RFC5019]
   MAY use the byName field to represent the ResponderID, but should
   transition to using the byKey field as soon as practical.

   Newer responders that conform to this profile MUST use the byKey
   field to represent the ResponderID to reduce the size of the
   response.
~~~

If so, a reference to [RFC6960] after "ResponseData.ResponderID choices" is probably enough.

Russ

> On Apr 18, 2024, at 7:24 AM, Deb Cooley via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5019bis-08: 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-rfc5019bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have only one comment:
> 
> Section 3.2.2, Appendix A:  The two terms 'byName' and 'byKey' are used without
> being defined (note: this is true in RFC 5019 too).  There are numerous 'Name'
> fields in the ASN.1, but no 'Key' fields.  My suggestion is to define these
> terms by pointing to the appropriate ASN.1 field.
> 
> [note:  finally, I get to ballot on a document I understand.  LOL]
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Spasm mailing list
> Spasm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm