Reviewer: Dale Worley 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-04 Reviewer: Dale R. Worley Review Date: 2022-08-07 IETF LC End Date: 2022-08-11 IESG Telechat date: (none) Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. The technical content of the draft is quite good, but there is an editorially critical issue regarding the allocation of the identifiers. There are three places where "to be done" identifiers are specified: 3.1. Including the Extended Key Purpose for Document Signing in id-kp-documentSigning OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp XX } 8.2. Informative References Appendix A. ASN.1 Module DocSignEKU { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0) id-mod-docsign-eku(TBD1) } id-kp-documentSigning OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD2 } However, section 7 "IANA Considerations" does not explicitly mention any of these substitutions. Compare with e.g. draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly10305. Section 7 does say that assignments need to be made to the appropriate registries but provides no reference or "Note to the Editor" what substitutions need to be made in the text. Also, "XX" must be the same as "TBD2", but that is not specified. There is also a redundant specification at the end of section 7, No further action is necessary by IANA. Given that the previous sentences in the paragraph state that there are two actions and then enumerate them, adding a statement that there are no others is redundant. [END] -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
