Francis,
Thanks for the review. Proposed resolutions for comments are inline.
spt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 4:33 AM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: review of draft-ietf-pkix-ecc-subpubkeyinfo-10.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 wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD
before posting a new version of the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-pkix-ecc-subpubkeyinfo-10.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 2008-12-03
IETF LC End Date: 2008-12-09
IESG Telechat date: 1008-12-18
Summary: Ready
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
- the Abstract mentions RFC 3279 when the body of the
document uses only the reference [PKI-ALG]. The standard
solution should be to add the reference into the Abstract but
it is forbidden so I propose to add the title of RFC 3279 in
the Abstract.
r/RFC 3279/Algorithms and Identifiers for the Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile,
RFC 3279.
- TOC page 2: Acknowledgements - Acknowledgments
Fixed.
- 1 page 2: I propose to add RFC 3279 before the first [PKI-ALG]
Fixed.
- 2.1 page 4: This value is also used when a key is used with ECDSA.
wording can be improved if the word used is not used twice?
Replaced text with: This value is also included in certificates when a
public key is used with ECDSA.
- 2.1.1 page 5: The AlgorithmIdentifier within
subjectPublicKeyInfo is
the only place ... formally the AlgorithmIdentifier is the type of
the field, not the field name so is not a place
r/place/field
- 3 page 7: at the first occurrence: CA - Certification
Authority (CA)
Fixed.
- 3 page 8: atthe first occurrence: EE - End Entity (EE)
Fixed.
- 4 page 10: please either add a reference for the MOV
(Menezes, Okamoto
and Vanstone) condition or improve the the wording making clear the
whole sentence is referenced by [X9.62].
r/the MOV/the Menezes-Okamoto-Vanstone (MOV) condition [X9.62]
- 4 page 10: IMHO it is not really necessary to add references for MD2
and MD5.
The WG specifically wanted this text in there so.
- 6 page 11: in NIST's arc - in the NIST arc
Fixed.
- 7 page 11: Acknowledgements - Acknowledgments
Fixed.
- 8.1 page 12: Standards for Efficient Cryptography -
Standards for Efficient Cryptography Group (SECG)
Fixed.
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: I don't comment about the technical details (I believe a
consensus was reached even this took a long time and many
messages :-) and I assume the ASN.1 part was (or will soon be)
checked with dedicated tools.
I did run the ASN.1 though a compiler and I got no errors.
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
