Last Call Review of draft-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05
review-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05-genart-lc-even-2016-12-05-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 06) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2016-08-12 | |
| Requested | 2016-08-01 | |
| Authors | Ilari Liusvaara | |
| Draft last updated | 2016-12-05 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -05
by
Roni Even
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -03 by Roni Even (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Melinda Shore (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -03 by Sarah Banks (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Roni Even |
| State | Completed Snapshot | |
| Review |
review-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05-genart-lc-even-2016-12-05
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 06) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2016-12-05 |
review-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05-genart-lc-even-2016-12-05-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-jose-cfrg-curves-05 Reviewer: Roni Even Review Date:2016-8-8 IETF LC End Date: 2016-8-12 IESG Telechat date: Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a standard track RFC. Major issues: Minor issues: Nits/editorial comments: 1. In the introduction "This document defines how those are to be used algorithms in JOSE in interoperable manner." Change to "This document defines how to use those algorithms in JOSE in interoperable manner." 2. Section 1 "This document defines the conventions to be used" change to "This document defines the conventions to use" 3. I find the sentence "(Trying to apply ECDSA to those curves leads to nasty corner-cases and produces odd results.)" may need some explanation or reference. 4. In the last paragraph of section 1 you have "the" twice.