Hi Jim
Thanks for all the suggestions and pointing you the IDNITS errors.
I have changed the content according to your suggestions, corrected the reference, and moved RFC 5912 to the informative reference section from normative reference section.
Russ has verified the ASN.1 module and it compiles fine.
Now this draft has 0 errors reported from IDNITS.
Meanwhile I have reached out to Joseph Salowey and am working with him to address the feedback he has provided.
Himanshu
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 3:12 PM Himanshu Sharma <himanshu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Jim for your time to review the Draft.I will work on the suggestions and update the draft accordingly.On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 11:04 AM Jim Fenton via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Reviewer: Jim Fenton
Review result: Almost Ready
I am the designated ART ART reviewer for draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-update-04.
Status: Almost ready
Comments:
Section 1, suggest replacing "[RFC8954] enforce the maximum" to "[RFC8954]
limits the maximum"
Section 2, suggest replacing "enforce" with "limit".
Section 2.1 paragraph 1 can be deleted since this is replacing RFC8954 in its
entirety.
Section 2.1 paragraph 3: "An OCSP client that implements this document SHOULD
use a minimum length of 32 octets..." while RFC 8954 says, "Newer OCSP clients
that support this document MUST use a length of 32 octets..." It seems like
this requirement has been weakened; is there a reason for that? Also in that
paragraph, rather than "in excess of what is permitted by RFC 8954" suggest
saying "in excess of the limit of 32 octets that was specified in RFC 8954."
Section 2.1 paragraph 4: replace "...MUST accept Nonce octets length of at
least 16 octets..." with "...MUST accept Nonce lengths of at least 16 octets..."
Section 2.1 paragraph 5: replace "Nonce octet length" with "Nonce length"
In the example, the object identifier, in addition to Offset and Length, is in
decimal.
I don't have the expertise in ASN.1 to fully review Appendix A; hopefully
another reviewer can check that.
IDNITS points out that you have a normative reference to RFC 5912, which is
informational. I'm not sure the reference is really normative, though.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
