Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-14: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-cose-merkle-tree-proofs-14 CC @evyncke Thank you for the work put into this document. While the introduction is easy to read, the rest of the document is less easy though. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). Special thanks to Ivaylo Petrov for the shepherd's write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### Section 4.1 For a non-expert reader, ` EC2 keys (1: 2)` is basically meaningless especially `(1: 2)`. ### Section 4.2 `Security analysis SHOULD be conducted` why not a "MUST" and it a "SHOULD", then explain why and when the "SHOULD" can be bypassed. ### Section 4.3 Should it be "TBD_0" in `This document registered a new COSE Header Parameter receipts (394)` ? Also in Figure 1. Is Figure 2 just an example or normative ? If example (as I guess), then clearly label it as 'example' in the caption and in the leading text. ### Section 5.2.1 Please replace 395 & co with TBC_* (not repeating this further). ### Section 6 Sometimes it is better to state the obvious and state that the privacy considerations of the 2 RFCs also apply to this document. ### Section 9 It is obviously up to the authors, but should there be a section about "Contributors" rather than writing `for their contributions (some of which substantial)` ? ## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ### Capitalization of Merkle There is at least one `merkle tree`, i.e., missing the capitalisation... _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
