Dale, Thanks for the review. Version -05 should address these: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku/ https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-04&url2=draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-05&difftype=--html spt > On Aug 7, 2022, at 15:45, Dale Worley via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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
