I have published a -08 with these changes. > -----Original Message----- > From: David Schinazi <dschinazi@xxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:45 PM > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: spasm@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5751-bis-07 > > Reviewer: David Schinazi > Review result: Ready > > 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-rfc5751-bis-07 > Reviewer: David Schinazi > Review Date: 2018-04-26 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-04-27 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > This document is clearly written and does a nice job of explaining the > rationale and historical context of the decisions it made. > > Major issues: > None noticed during this review > > Minor issues: > I was slightly confused by the description of AuthEnvelopedData in 2.4.4: > it seems to describe data protected by a symmetric AEAD but then > mentions > asymmetric keys. But this could be due to my lack of expertise in S/MIME. I have tried to clear this up. The following sentence has been added In order to distribute the symmetric key, a sender needs to have access to a public key for each intended message recipient to use this service. > > Nits/editorial comments: > I believe the RFC2119 reference should also mention RFC8174. Done Jim
