[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-turner-application-pkcs10-media-type-04.txt
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-turner-application-pkcs10-media-type-04.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia miguel.a.gar...@ericsson.com Review Date: 30-April-2010 IETF LC End Date: 10-May-2010 Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC (see comments below). Minor issues: I would like to discuss with the author on sentence that is a bit controversial to me. On Section 2, the sentence reads: The application/pkcs10 media type MUST be used to transfer a PKCS #10 certification request. Allow me turn the sentence into an equivalent, but easier to understand, active voice: A PKCS #10 certification request MUST use the application/pkcs10 media type. And here is my problem. This Internet-Draft is about the application/pkcs10 media type, so you cannot write a requirement for a PKCS #10 certification request, which is specified in RFC 2986, to mandate the usage of the application/pcks10 media type. In other words, I believe the sentence is technically correct, but this is not the document where it should be written. So, did the author write this sentence intentionally or has further background for its existence? Nits/editorial comments: - In Section 3 (IANA), please identify the registry where IANA has to operate, which I believe is the Application Media Types registry. - Question. In Section 3.1 (registration of the application/pkcs10 media type), there is a reference in Published specifications to RFC 2986. If I were reading the IANA registry and open RFC 2986, I wouldn't find any reference to this media type. Therefore, I conclude that the Published Specifications should refer only to this Internet-Draft and not to RFC 2986. - Expand DER at first usage (second paragraph in Section 2.1). -- Miguel A. Garcia +34-91-339-3608 Ericsson Spain ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] gen-art review of draft-moriarty-post-inch-rid-transport-02.txt
On 04/23/2010 12:56 PM, Scott Brim wrote: I'm just sending this internally. This draft is for Transport of Real-time Inter-network Defense (RID) Messages, over XML over HTTP/TLS with a new TCP port number. I have two thoughts: (1) I guess it works, and Can't we do better than this? but I don't know much about ops/mgmt so I can't say this idea is painful to think about, you should do it this other way instead. So, - This draft is ready for publication as an informational RFC. - Maybe one of you can say something more erudite. - Is this typical? It feels so top heavy. Scott: Do you want the above to be the summary stored on the Gen-ART page? Please advise. Thanks, - vijay ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-turner-application-pkcs10-media-type-04.txt
Miguel A. Garcia wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-turner-application-pkcs10-media-type-04.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia miguel.a.gar...@ericsson.com Review Date: 30-April-2010 IETF LC End Date: 10-May-2010 Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as an Informational RFC (see comments below). Minor issues: I would like to discuss with the author on sentence that is a bit controversial to me. On Section 2, the sentence reads: The application/pkcs10 media type MUST be used to transfer a PKCS #10 certification request. Allow me turn the sentence into an equivalent, but easier to understand, active voice: A PKCS #10 certification request MUST use the application/pkcs10 media type. And here is my problem. This Internet-Draft is about the application/pkcs10 media type, so you cannot write a requirement for a PKCS #10 certification request, which is specified in RFC 2986, to mandate the usage of the application/pcks10 media type. In other words, I believe the sentence is technically correct, but this is not the document where it should be written. So, did the author write this sentence intentionally or has further background for its existence? That sentence was taken from RFC 2311 (i.e., SMIMEv2) section 3.7. I suspect (it was before my time) that it was there to specify how to request a certificate from a CA. This was before PKIX standardized their different options. I see your point about it belonging in RFC 2986, but this document updates RFC 2986 so it will be part of that document. I will incorporate your suggested rewording (active is better than passive). Does this address your concern? Nits/editorial comments: - In Section 3 (IANA), please identify the registry where IANA has to operate, which I believe is the Application Media Types registry. You are correct. I will add this. - Question. In Section 3.1 (registration of the application/pkcs10 media type), there is a reference in Published specifications to RFC 2986. If I were reading the IANA registry and open RFC 2986, I wouldn't find any reference to this media type. Therefore, I conclude that the Published Specifications should refer only to this Internet-Draft and not to RFC 2986. You are correct. I was pointing to RFC 2986 for the contents of the that document, but I don't need to do that. - Expand DER at first usage (second paragraph in Section 2.1). Fixed. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] A *new* batch of IETF LC reviews - 29 April 2010
Hi all, Here's the link to the new LC assignments for this week: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100429-lc.html The assignments are captured in the spreadsheets: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html The standard template is included below. Thanks, Mary. --- I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: Reviewer: Review Date: IETF LC End Date: IESG Telechat date: (if known) Summary: Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] Assignments for May 6, 2010 Telechat
Hi all, Here's the link to the summary of assignments for the May 6, 2010 telechat: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/reviewers-100506.html With the updated spreadsheets: http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art.html http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/gen-art-by-reviewer.html For your convenience, the review boilerplate template is included below. Note that reviews should ideally be posted to the gen-art mailing list by COB on Tuesday: http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/review-guidelines.html Mary. --- I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: Reviewer: Review Date: IESG Telechat date: 6 May 2010 Summary: Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
