Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sha3-hash-03
review-ietf-lamps-cms-sha3-hash-03-genart-lc-worley-2024-04-27-00

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document:  draft-ietf-lamps-cms-sha3-hash-03
Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
Review Date:  2024-04-27
IETF LC End Date:  2024-05-03
IESG Telechat date:  [not known]

Summary:

    This draft is basically ready for publication, but has a nit that
    should be fixed before publication.

I assume that the ASN.1 module has been reviewed by someone with the
necessary expertise.  (I do not have that expertise.)

Nits/editorial comments:

5.2.  KMAC128-KDF and KMAC256-KDF

The following is probably clearer if one is familiar with these
algorithms.  The text states

   The parameters are:

and follows with a list of four parameter values.  But later it says

   When the id-kmac128 or id-kmac256 is used as part of an algorithm
   identifier, the parameters field MUST be absent if no customization
   label is used for S.  If any other value is used for S, then
   parameters field MUST be present and contain the value of S, encoded
   as Customization.

Some differentiation should be made between the two senses of
"parameters".  In particular, it would help to state here where the K,
X, and L "parameters" are put, since they aren't put in the
"parameters field".

Also, the phrase "if no customization label is used for S" is not
quite correct, as it implies that something else could be "used for
S".  I think the correct wording is "if there is no customization
label S", which reflects that S has been stated to be "optional".

[END]