Russ, Thank you very much for the explanation. It makes sense. Linda -----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 9:20 AM To: Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@xxxxxxxx>; Last Call <last-call@xxxxxxxx>; draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules.all@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules-02 Linda: Thanks for the review. > > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by > the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like > any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fgen%2Fwiki%2FGenArtfaq&data=04%7C01%7Clinda.dunbar%40futurewei.com%7C4030230f5c7f49d6ae2708d94b8974f8%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637623876015378248%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=jMMTzrlGyeDdIoO37Ry51HW%2BdZsru9bd2mO%2BXlWdlww%3D&reserved=0>. > > Document: draft-housley-ers-asn1-modules-?? > Reviewer: Linda Dunbar > Review Date: 2021-07-19 > IETF LC End Date: 2021-08-13 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > This document offers alternate ASN.1 modules that conform to the 2002 > version of ASN.1 for Evidence Record Syntax (ERS). > > Question: > Is the Evidence Record Syntax specified in this draft going to obsolete RFC4998? No. This document offers an informational specification with an ASN.1 syntax that is compatible with conventions adopted in RFC 5911, RFC 5912, and RFC 6268. However, RFC 4998 generates the same bits on the wire as this new specification. > > How come the AlgorithmIdentifier in this draft is slightly different > from the AlgorithmIdentifier in RFC4998? This is needed to be compatible with conventions adopted in RFC 5911, RFC 5912, and RFC 6268. > > This draft has: > > AlgorithmIdentifier{}, DIGEST-ALGORITHM FROM > AlgorithmInformation-2009 -- in [RFC5912] > { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) > security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) > id-mod-algorithmInformation-02(58) } > > RFC4998 has: > AlgorithmIdentifier > FROM PKIX1Explicit88 > { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) > internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) > mod(0) pkix1-explicit(18) } > > RFC4998's pkix1-explicit(18) is not present in this draft. Is it intended? Again, this is needed to be compatible with conventions adopted in RFC 5911, RFC 5912, and RFC 6268. If you look into RFC 5912, you will see that it contains an alternative for the pkix1-explicit module. This is using that alternative module. Russ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
