Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-08
review-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-08-genart-lc-robles-2020-07-08-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2020-07-09
Requested 2020-06-25
Authors Michael Richardson, Thomas Werner, Wei Pan
Draft last updated 2020-07-08
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Ines Robles (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -07 by Joel Jaeggli (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -07 by Catherine Meadows (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Ines Robles
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-08-genart-lc-robles-2020-07-08
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/lE_pe-seDy8FnQhnpIbnG2JgTDk
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 09)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2020-07-08

Review
review-ietf-lamps-rfc7030est-clarify-08-genart-lc-robles-2020-07-08

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-rfc7030est-clarify-08
Reviewer: Ines Robles
Review Date: 2020-07-08
IETF LC End Date: 2020-07-09
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary:

This document updates RFC7030 to address errata.  This document deprecates the specification of "Content-Transfer-Encoding" headers for EST endpoints.  This document fixes some
   syntactical errors in ASN.1 that were presented.

The document is clear and well written. I have some minor nits/questions

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments/questions:

1- It would be nice to add in Terminology section that the document uses the terminology of RFC7030 and RFC5272

2- Introduction: "reports from implementers suggest..." It would be nice to add reference/s here 

3- Security Considerations: 

It would be nice to add smth like "security considerations from RFC7030 applies also for the clarifications described in this document."

5- IANA Considerations:
It would be nice to add the specific registry that IANA should update. 
For example, instead of "IANA is requested to update the "Reference" column for the Asymmetric Decryption Key Identifier attribute to also include a reference to
   this document." you could add smth like (if applicable): " IANA is requested to update the registry SMI Security for S/MIME Attributes (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.2) " 
with the reference of this document as follows: 

Decimal - Description 			-Reference
54	id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID	 [RFC7030] [ThisDocument]	
 

4- Appendix A: In id-aa-asymmDecryptKeyID OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= {...}

4.1-   pkcs9(9) should be pkcs-9(9) ?

4.2-   aa(2) should be id-aa(2) ?

Thank you for this document,

Ines.