Ballot for draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Needs 3 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
# Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-11 # The line numbers used are rendered from IETF idnits tool: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lamps-x509-shbs-11.txt # Thank you for the work spending in this document. I found it hard to read, but i suspect that is because of my unfamiliarity with the technologies documented within this text. # The document does not have a terminology section explaining the abbreviations used in the document. Consider adding such section. Sometimes an abbreviation is expended upon first usage, sometimes it is not, for example "OID" #DETAILED COMMENTS #================= 116 A stateful HBS private key is a finite collection of OTS keys, hence 117 only a limited number of messages can be signed and the private key's GV> The statement "A stateful HBS private key is a finite collection of OTS keys" is mostly correct, but it can be made more precise. What about the following: " A stateful HBS private key consists of a finite collection of OTS keys, along with state information that tracks the usage of these keys to ensure the security of the scheme. " 122 longer signing time. Due to the statefulness of the private key and 123 the limited number of signatures that can be created, stateful HBS 124 schemes might not be appropriate for use in interactive protocols. GV> Would the following not be a more digestible textblob to say the same: " Because the private key in stateful HBS schemes is stateful and the number of signatures that can be generated is limited, these schemes may be unsuitable for use in interactive protocols. "
Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review. Thank you Russ Housley and Daniel Van Geest for answering my DISCUSS and COMMENT feedback.
Beside the lack of justification for the intended status in the shepherd write-up, no INT specific comments.