[lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig-08
Joe Clarke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 17 July 2019 13:41 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 F3E5F120409; Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joe Clarke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: spasm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.99.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <156337089593.25931.11629242002096530442@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 06:41:35 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/xF1fkk-xsNNJh4WqvF3-HTCupbE>
Subject: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig-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, 17 Jul 2019 13:41:36 -0000
Reviewer: Joe Clarke Review result: Ready I have been assigned to review this document as part of the ops directorate. This document describes conventions for using the HSS/LMS with CMS. Overall, this document is well-written, and I appreciate the considerations around signing size and computation in the introduction. This will help operators properly evaluate the use of this algorithm. I did find a few small nits. One thing that struck me on the first read is that you have to get to the Introduction before HSS/LMS are expanded whereas CMS is expanded in the abstract. Might I suggest you expand HSS and LMS in the abstract as well? Other nits: Abstract: s/for using the the HSS/LMS/for using the HSS/LMS/ === Section 2.3: s/When this object identifier is used for a HSS/LMS/When this object identifier is used for an HSS/LMS/ === Section 6: s/cause an one-time key/cause a one-time key/ s/When generating a LMS key pair/When generating an LMS key pair/
- [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lam… Joe Clarke via Datatracker
- Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf… Russ Housley
- Re: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf… Joe Clarke (jclarke)