Telechat Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-07
review-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-07-intdir-telechat-eastlake-2022-11-23-00

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for
<draft-ietf-lamps-rfc3709bis-07.txt>. These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and
shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments
from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last
Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT
Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ <
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/>.

Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
OBJECTION.

This document is generally in quite good shape. It specifies a certificate
extension for including logotypes in public key certificates and attribute
certificates. As such, usual INT Area considerations play very little part
in the draft.

The following are minor issues (typos, misspelling, minor text
improvements) with the document:

Section 9, Page 21: In the paragraph on has algorithm collisions, consider
"vulnerable to collision attacks." -> "vulnerable to collision attacks such
as MD5 [RFC6151]."

Nits:

Section 3, Page 7: "between of" -> "of between"

Section 3. Page 8: "more than one of the audio object" -> "more than one of
the audio objects"

Section 7, Page 18:
 - I think ".ext" as the column header for extension is a bit obscure. How
about ".ext" -> "Extension"?
 - It seems odd to require support for .svgz but not .svg since you
obviously have to support .svg internally if you support .svgz.

Section 10, Page 23: "hide the name resolution" -> "hides the name
resolution"

Stylistic:

Section 1.1, Page 4:
"the user in conscious contact with the result of a certificate-based
identification process," ->
"to the user's attention a certificate-based identification,"

Section 4.1, Pages 11&12: There are three flavors of logotype defined and
for each of them the same statement occurs that it "MAY be present in an
end entity certificate, a CA certificate, or an attribute certificate." I
would factor that out of the three sub paragraphs and change the lead in
line from "Logotype types defined in this specification are:" to something
like "Three Logotypes are specified in this section below. Each of them
"MAY be present in an end entity certificate, a CA certificate, or an
attribute certificate."

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com