IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-samples-05

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Mon, 13 December 2021 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4BC3A0D72; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:48:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5GDrElTatGCy; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:48:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31DA53A0D71; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 1BD3mH9o023439 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 12 Dec 2021 22:48:24 -0500
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:48:17 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lamps-samples.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, spasm@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20211213034817.GY11486@mit.edu>
References: <163707453393.17796.13018883385449077212@ietfa.amsl.com> <87pmq87e5f.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <87pmq87e5f.fsf@fifthhorseman.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/ng-Pg8XY-EsJ2N7lG2-_xhOoxxs>
Subject: Re: [lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-samples-05
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 03:48:38 -0000

Hi dkg,

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 03:11:56PM +0200, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> I appreciate your catching these unexpanded acronyms.  I am happy to add
> expansions for them, or maybe just outbound references if that seems
> appropriate.
> 
> "OCSP" and "CRL" appear in the draft in reference to certificate
> indicators, meaning specific X.509 extensions; for OCSP i would refer to
> id-ad-ocsp in the Authority Information Access X.509 extension
> (i.e., §4.2.2.1 of RFC 5280), and for CRL i would refer to the CRL
> Distribution Points X.509 extension (i.e., §4.2.1.13 of RFC 5280).
> 
> For "PEM encoding" I would add an informative reference to RFC 7468,
> where §5 describes certificates and §10 describes private keys.
> 
> Would that be a useful set of changes to the document?

IMHO, yes.

Thanks,

Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email