Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cose-x509-08
review-ietf-cose-x509-08-secdir-lc-kaufman-2021-01-05-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-cose-x509
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-12-29
Requested 2020-12-15
Authors Jim Schaad
Draft last updated 2021-01-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Charlie Kaufman (diff)
Iotdir Telechat review of -07 by Carsten Bormann (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Charlie Kaufman
Assignment Reviewer Charlie Kaufman 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-cose-x509-08-secdir-lc-kaufman-2021-01-05
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/FxXWt8ouGAQeUnRUuDMPP0wXSx0/
Reviewed rev. 08
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2021-01-01

Review
review-ietf-cose-x509-08-secdir-lc-kaufman-2021-01-05

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

This is a re-review. I reviewed draft-ietf-cose-x509-07 in September. I found nothing objectionable and all of my suggestions were addressed. As I mentioned there, the only thing the security community might find vaguely controversial is the mandate (on page 5) for support of the SHA-256 hash algorithm "for interoperability" (along optionally with other hash algorithms). The document correctly notes that what is specified does not guarantee interoperability.

One new typo:

page 4: duplicating certificates -> duplicate certificates


--Charlie