Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2022-08-11
Requested 2022-07-28
Authors Tadahiko Ito , Tomofumi Okubo , Sean Turner
Draft last updated 2022-08-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Dale R. Worley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -05 by Nancy Cam-Winget (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Dale R. Worley
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-04-genart-lc-worley-2022-08-07
Posted at
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 06)
Result Ready with Nits
Completed 2022-08-07
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-documentsigning-eku-04
Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
Review Date:  2022-08-07
IETF LC End Date:  2022-08-11
IESG Telechat date:  (none)


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

The technical content of the draft is quite good, but there is an
editorially critical issue regarding the allocation of the
identifiers.  There are three places where "to be done" identifiers
are specified:

3.1.  Including the Extended Key Purpose for Document Signing in

     id-kp-documentSigning  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { id-kp XX }

8.2.  Informative References

Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module
     DocSignEKU { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
       security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
       id-mod-docsign-eku(TBD1) }

     id-kp-documentSigning OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD2 }

However, section 7 "IANA Considerations" does not explicitly mention
any of these substitutions.  Compare with
e.g. draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly10305.  Section 7 does say
that assignments need to be made to the appropriate registries but
provides no reference or "Note to the Editor" what substitutions need
to be made in the text.  Also, "XX" must be the same as "TBD2", but
that is not specified.

There is also a redundant specification at the end of section 7,

   No further action is necessary by IANA.

Given that the previous sentences in the paragraph state that there
are two actions and then enumerate them, adding a statement that there
are no others is redundant.