RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31

[Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the review, Roni.  I’m also cc’ing the working group so they’re aware of your review.  Replies are inline below…

 

From: Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 4:47 AM
To: draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms.all@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gen-art@xxxxxxxx
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31

 

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-jose-json-web-algorithms-31

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date:2014–9-1

IETF LC End Date: 2014–9-3

IESG Telechat date:

 

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC.

 

 

Major issues:

 

Minor issues:

 

 

Nits/editorial comments:

1. Section 4.8 “This section defines the specifies” should be “specifics”

 

Thanks

 

2. Section 5.2.2 “Section 5.2.3 and Section 5.2.5” should be “through” since 5.2.4 also defines instances.

 

Agreed

 

3. Section 5.2.2.1 in bullet 1 “the values of these parameters are specified by the AEAD algorithms (in Section 5.2.3 and Section 5.2.5)”. Did you mean AEAD in which case is should be expanded and a reference is probably needed or do you need to change it to Authenticated Encryption? Also the “and” should be “through” same as previous comment.

 

Yes, the “AEAD” should become “Authenticated Encryption” to be consistent with the rest of the spec.  And agreed about “through”.

 

4. In section 5.2.2.1 bullet 4 for “number of bits in A“ I had to go to bullet 5 to see what A is. Maybe add also here “additional authenticated data”

 

“A” is defined in the first sentence of 5.2.2.1 as “additional authenticated data”.  But there would be no harm the addition you propose.  Knowing that it’s defined in the first sentence, do you still want to see the addition?

 

                                                                Thanks again,

                                                                -- Mike