[stir] Shepherd Review of draft-ietf-stir-certificates-shortlived-03

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jon,
  
I am in the process of doing the shepherd writeup for draft-ietf-stir-certificates-shortlived-03, and noted a few comments. Most are trivial and can be addressed when convenient, but there are a few that might cause confusion during IESG review and should be addressed prior to that.  

Thanks!
Ben.

-----------------
  
##Standard Questions  
  
- Are you aware of any IPR that needs to be declared?  
- Do you still want your name on the resulting RFC?  
  
## Substantive Comments  
### Section 1  
- “… this document revises the guidance of [RFC8224]…”: Should this draft formally update that RFC? If not, then maybe this should be reworded, otherwise there is a risk of the IESG getting wrapped around this axle.  
### Section 4  
- 2nd paragraph, “… this specification permits the conveyance”: IIUC, this specification _requires_ that conveyance for short-lived certs following this specification.  
- Last paragraph: We are not actually allowing that alternative approach to x5c, right? I think this sentence will cause confusion during the IESG review. Is it actually needed?  
  
## Minor Comments and Nits  
  
### Section 1  
- Paragraph 1: “… the implementation of credentials which identify…”: s/which/that  
- “… this document revises the guidance of [RFC8224] to REQUIRE”: I’m guessing REQUIRE should not be capitalized, since this is a statement of fact, not an authoritative normative statement.   
### Section 4:   
- Example PassPORT: Has this been verified mechanically  
### Normative References  
- It seems like several of these could be informative and save people the problem of checking against the downref registry  
- Are [ATIS-0300251] and [DSS] actually cited in the document somewhere? If so, I missed it.