Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig-08
review-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig-08-opsdir-lc-clarke-2019-07-17-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2019-08-01 | |
Requested | 2019-07-11 | |
Authors | Russ Housley | |
I-D last updated | 2019-07-17 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -08
by Dale R. Worley
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Joe Clarke (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Radia Perlman (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Joe Clarke |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/asE9gB9SUw1OZFo2ELNScovO9mo | |
Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2019-07-17 |
review-ietf-lamps-cms-hash-sig-08-opsdir-lc-clarke-2019-07-17-00
I have been assigned to review this document as part of the ops directorate. This document describes conventions for using the HSS/LMS with CMS. Overall, this document is well-written, and I appreciate the considerations around signing size and computation in the introduction. This will help operators properly evaluate the use of this algorithm. I did find a few small nits. One thing that struck me on the first read is that you have to get to the Introduction before HSS/LMS are expanded whereas CMS is expanded in the abstract. Might I suggest you expand HSS and LMS in the abstract as well? Other nits: Abstract: s/for using the the HSS/LMS/for using the HSS/LMS/ === Section 2.3: s/When this object identifier is used for a HSS/LMS/When this object identifier is used for an HSS/LMS/ === Section 6: s/cause an one-time key/cause a one-time key/ s/When generating a LMS key pair/When generating an LMS key pair/