Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-02-16
Requested 2016-02-04
Authors Gustavo Lozano Ibarra
I-D last updated 2016-06-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Russ Housley (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -04 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Simon Josefsson (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Tim Wicinski (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Russ Housley
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Not ready
Completed 2016-06-09
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

Document: draft-ietf-eppext-tmch-smd-04
Reviewer: Russ Housley
Review Date: 2016-02-12
IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-04
IESG Telechat date: 2016-02-18

Summary:  Not Ready

Major Concerns: 

The Security Considerations include this paragraph:

   Signed Marks are used primarily for sunrise domain name registrations
   in gTLDs, but other third-parties might be using them.  A party using
   Signed Marks should verify that the digital signature is valid based
   on local policy.  In the case of gTLDs, the RPM Requirements document
   [ICANN-TMCH] defines such policy.

The RPM Requirements document [ICANN-TMCH] does not seem to say anything
at all about validating a digital signature.

Protocols that make use of certificates perform some checks on the
certificate subject name to ensure that it represents an appropriate
signer.  That is missing from this document, and it is not contained in
[ICANN-TMCH] either.

Minor Concerns:

Section 2, second paragraph, I think that use of the phrase "in the
appropriate objects" ass ambiguity.  I suggest:

   This section defines some elements as OPTIONAL.  If an elements is
   not defined as OPTIONAL, then it MUST be included in the object.

The NOTE at the end of Section 2.3 about choosing an algorithm other
that RSA-SHA256 is better suited for the Security Considerations.
It would be helpful to say something more about the needed security

Why is RFC5730 a normative reference?  I do not see a dependency.

Other Editorial Comments:

Section 1: s/nothing precudle/nothing precludes/