Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-03
review-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-03-secdir-lc-yu-2017-10-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 04)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-07-25
Requested 2017-07-11
Authors Russ Housley
Draft last updated 2017-10-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -02 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Taylor Yu (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -02 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -03 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Taylor Yu
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-03-secdir-lc-yu-2017-10-12
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 04)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2017-10-12

Review
review-ietf-lamps-rfc5280-i18n-update-03-secdir-lc-yu-2017-10-12

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments just like any other last call comments.

The summary of the review is: Ready with Nits.

This seems to be a useful incremental improvement to RFC 5280.  The
Security Considerations seem reasonable.  The nits are minor and can
likely be resolved as part of the RFC Editor process.

Nits:

* RFC3492 is listed as an Informative reference but section 2.3 (which
  modifies section 7.2 of RFC5280) is normative text that refers to it.
  (though not using an RFC2199 keyword)  Arguably this might be OK
  because I think other normative references in this document
  transitively cite RFC3492.

* RFC3629 is listed as an Informative reference but the new text in
  section 2.4 (which modifies section 7.5 of RFC5280) appears to refer
  to it normatively (about BOMs).

Best regards,
-Taylor