Carl Thank you for your proposal. I submitted the updated version. Hendrik >Von: Carl Wallace <carl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2025 21:13 > >All of the proposed changes look fine. One comment is inline below. > >On 2/10/25, 4:22 AM, "Brockhaus, Hendrik" <hendrik.brockhaus@xxxxxxxxxxx ><mailto:hendrik.brockhaus@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > >Carl > > >Thank you for your review. Please find my comments below. >You can find the Diff on Github >https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor- >tools.ietf.org%2Fapi%2Fiddiff%3Fdoc_1%3Ddraft-ietf-lamps-automation- >keyusages%26url_2%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Flamps-wg.github.io%2Fautomation- >keyusages%2Fdraft-ietf-lamps-automation- >keyusages.txt&data=05%7C02%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7C1e >9f72ff96ff49aa28d108dd4c6ad2a2%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a >%7C1%7C0%7C638750743872101283%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ >FbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiT >WFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FfW%2FK3FPeuV5L3 >CbGpYa1SNm8S%2FWh7TV%2FdD717YSzqM%3D&reserved=0 ><https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fauthor- >tools.ietf.org%2Fapi%2Fiddiff%3Fdoc_1%3Ddraft-ietf-lamps-automation- >keyusages%26amp%3Burl_2%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Flamps- >wg.github.io%2Fautomation-keyusages%2Fdraft-ietf-lamps-automation- >keyusages.txt&data=05%7C02%7Chendrik.brockhaus%40siemens.com%7C1e >9f72ff96ff49aa28d108dd4c6ad2a2%7C38ae3bcd95794fd4addab42e1495d55a >%7C1%7C0%7C638750743872147188%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ >FbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiT >WFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=HMxZ1hYfqP851nnutn >MWYL8rUY1MktfZKQDR8vb0FOU%3D&reserved=0> > > >Hendrik > > >>Von: Carl Wallace via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx >><mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx>> >>Gesendet: Freitag, 7. Februar 2025 11:55 >> >>Reviewer: Carl Wallace >>Review result: Has Nits ><snip> > > >>- The last two sentences of the last paragraph are overly broad. >>As written, I could elect to use any of these KeyPurposeIds for any purpose I >want to. >>That can't be the intention and it's in direct conflict with the first >>paragraph of Section 3. Suggest deleting those sentences. I suspect the >>point was to address combination of KeyPurposeIds. If this is correct, >>maybe: "This specification does not prohibit combining the >>KeyPurposeIds defined in this specification with any other >>KeyPurposeId. Such restrictions may be imposed by other technical >>standards or certificate policies." This point is already made in section 3, though, >so deletion is fine too. >[HB] This paragraph is not about combinations of keyPurposeIds. >In my company it was discussed whether the keyPurposeIds defined here, which >are first used in the EU-Rail specification, may also be used in other industry- >specific standards. The aim of this paragraph is to express that the use of the >keyPurposeIds defined in this document can be used by any other application >specific standard. >If it does no harm, I would like to keep this statement. > >[CW] OK, but I still think its too broadly worded. How about instead of "How any of >the KeyPurpose OIDs defined in this document are implemented is out of scope >of this document" something like "The context in which the KeyPurposeIds >defined in this document are used is out of scope for this document." > [HB] Thank you for the proposal. I like it. <snip> -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
