Skip to main content

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 revision No specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2020-12-29
Requested 2020-12-15
Authors Jim Schaad
I-D last updated 2021-01-05
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -07 by Vijay K. 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 (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Charlie Kaufman
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-cose-x509-08-secdir-lc-kaufman-2021-01-05
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/FxXWt8ouGAQeUnRUuDMPP0wXSx0/
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 09)
Result Ready
Completed 2021-01-01
review-ietf-cose-x509-08-secdir-lc-kaufman-2021-01-05-00
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