[lamps] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-15: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-15: 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/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-cms-shakes/



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


Thank you for the work put into this document. I second Alexey's DISCUSS that
is easy to fix.

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

-- Section 4.1 --

Can you check whether the begin and the end of this section are consistent ?
I.e. "id-shake128 and id-shake256 OIDs" vs. "output length of SHA256 or
SHAKE256" ? I must admit that my knowledge of crypto is not paramount but I
find this weird.

-- Section 4.2.1 --

Is there any reason why length are measured in bytes while in other sections it
is in bits? Readers can do the math of course but why making the text more
complex to parse?

== NITS ==

-- Section 3 --

Why are some object identifier are fully in lowercase and some are a mix of
lower and uppercase characters?