I am OK with the update. Thanks, Tianran > -----Original Message----- > From: Panos Kampanakis (pkampana) [mailto:pkampana@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 11:57 AM > To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@xxxxxxxxxx>; ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: spasm@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of > draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08 > > Thank you Tianran. > > > The normative and informative reference in this draft are not clear to me. > I think that RFC8017 and RFC8174 should not be normative reference. And why > some standard tack RFC are listed in informative reference? > > Indeed RFC8017 and RFC8174 are Normative References. RFC8017 is Informational > draft but we are keeping it in the Normative References even though idnits > complains because we need a normative reference for RSASSA-PSS otherwise > someone implementing our draft would not know RSASSA-PSS. RFC4056 does the > same thing with RSASS-PSS v2.1. RFC8174 is Normative because we must be read > to understand what the capital letters mean in our draft. It is normative > in other standards like RFC8366 as well. We have some Informative References > that are Standard RFCs. The reason we do that is because someone does not > need to read them to understand or implement the proposed draft as per > https://ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-reference > s/ > > All the Editorial nits are fixed in the next iterations that will be pushed > out soon. > > Panos > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Spasm <spasm-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Tianran Zhou via > Datatracker > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 12:11 AM > To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: spasm@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake.all@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08 > > Reviewer: Tianran Zhou > Review result: Has Issues > > I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects > of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be > included in AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs > should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. > > Document reviewed: draft-ietf-lamps-pkix-shake-08 Intended Status: > Standards Track > > Summary: > In general, this document is clear to me. I did not see any special operational > or network management related issue. It's almost ready to be published. There > are some issues and nits. > > Issues: > The normative and informative reference in this draft are not clear to me.. > I think that [RFC8017](Informational) and [RFC8174](BCP) should not be > normative reference. And why some standard tack RFC are listed in informative > reference? > > Editorial: > line 102: redundand -> redundant > line 126,129: Deterministric -> Deterministic line 314: algorithsm -> > algorithms line 378: subtitutions -> substitutions line 763,777: > Determinstic -> Deterministic > > _______________________________________________ > Spasm mailing list > Spasm@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm
