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-rfc5019bis-05
Reviewer: Paul Kyzivat
Review Date: 2024-03-23
IETF LC End Date: 2024-03-29
IESG Telechat date: ?
Summary:
This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
review.
ISSUES:
MINOR: 4
1) MINOR: Abstract:
The abstract from RFC 5019 has not been carried over to this bis. It has
been replaced by an explanation for why RFC 5019 is being updated. Once
this is published this explanation text will cease to be relevant to a
new reader. I suggest bringing back the abstract from RFC 5019.
(Possibly with updates.) The explanation for why the bis was made can be
moved to an appendix.
That appendix should also include the list of substantive changes now at
the end of section 1.
2) MINOR: Duplications from RFC 6960
Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 now includes ASN.1 definitions copied from RFC
6960. I suggest that you at least make clear that these are copies and
are not changed from RFC 6960. Or reconsider whether including them
substantially improves the document.
3) MINOR: Security considerations
You should consider adding security considerations discussing the
implications of the backward compatibility with RFC 5019. (E.g.,
continuing to support SHA-1.)
4) MINOR: Examples
Is there a reason why Appendix A containing examples has been removed?
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
