Use of the HSS/LMS Hash-Based Signature Algorithm in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc8708bis-03
Yes
Deb Cooley
Erik Kline
Orie Steele
No Objection
Gunter Van de Velde
Jim Guichard
John Scudder
Murray Kucherawy
Warren Kumari
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Deb Cooley
Yes
Erik Kline
Yes
Orie Steele
Yes
Paul Wouters
(was Discuss)
Yes
Comment
(2024-09-20)
Sent
Thanks for the discussion and the changes. I have updated my ballot to Yes
Gunter Van de Velde
No Objection
Jim Guichard
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Mahesh Jethanandani
No Objection
Comment
(2024-09-01 for -02)
Sent
I am yet to see a response to the SECDIR review done by Donald Eastlake. Hope the authors are planning to address the comments. Section 1.4, paragraph 4 > Provide more detail in Section 4 regarding allowed values in the > X.509 certificate key usage extension for an HSS/LMS public key. Is this a TODO for the author? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NIT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. These URLs in the document did not return content: * http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783540887010-c1.pdf Section 1, paragraph 1 > ystem to efficiently scale for a larger numbers of signatures. The HSS/LMS al > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The plural noun "numbers" cannot be used with the article "a". Did you mean "a larger number" or "larger numbers"?
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2024-09-03 for -02)
Not sent
Thank you to Linda Dunbar for the GENART review.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2024-08-30 for -02)
Sent
Thank you for the work done in this document. Some non-blocking comments though ;-) The shepherd's write-up is slight inconsistent as it says that this I-D "updates" RFC 8708 while it actually obsoletes it. Also, I am unsure whether this I-D is fixing an erratum (Q1 of the template) or at least the erratum reference would be welcome. ## Section 1.3 I find weird to have a 2013 reference in the same sentence as "recent advances", see `Recent advances in cryptanalysis [BH2013]` ;-) ## Section 1.4 Is there some hand waving in this section with terms like `there are plans` and `yet-to-be-published` ? I am not very familiar in the PKIX/CMS parts of the Internet, so this may well be clear for more knowledgeable people.