Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2019-08-06
Requested 2019-07-16
Authors Russ Housley
I-D last updated 2019-07-30
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -06 by Phillip Hallam-Baker (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 07)
Result Ready w/issues
Completed 2019-07-30
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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at


Document: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-mix-with-psk-05
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2019-07-30
IETF LC End Date: 2019-08-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Essentially ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, but with an
issue to address before publication.

Issue: The instructions for IANA are unclear. IANA has to infer what to add to
the registries. I think they _can_ infer what to do for the IANA-MOD registry.
It's harder (though still possible) to guess what to do for IANA-SMIME. They
also have to infer the structure of the new registry this document intends to
create. Explicit would be better. Also, the document anticipates the currently
non-existing anchor to the new registry in the references (security-smime-13).
That generally should also be a tbd to be filled by IANA when the anchor is
actually created.

Nits/editorial comments:

Section 5, 1st paragraph, last sentence: "make use fo" should be "makes use of"

Section 9, 1st sentence : "in the Section 5" should be "in Section 6". (That's
two changes - the removal of a word, and a correction to the section number).

Micronit: In the introduction, you say "can be invulnerable to an attacker".
"invulnerable" is maybe stronger than you mean?