Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols-

Request Review of draft-ietf-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 20)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-05-22
Requested 2012-05-10
Authors Tomi Kause, Martin Peylo
Draft last updated 2012-05-14
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Christer Holmberg
Genart Last Call review of -?? by Christer Holmberg
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols-genart-lc-holmberg-2012-05-14
Review completed: 2012-05-14


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <>.


Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.


Document: draft-ietf-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols-18.txt

Reviewer: Christer Holmberg

Review Date: 14 May 2012

IETF LC End Date: 21 May 2012

IESG Telechat date: 24 May 2012


Summary: The draft is ready for publication, but with a number of editorial nits.


Major issues: -


Minor issues: -


Nits/editorial comments:



Section 1:



Q1-1: In my opinion the following statement (1st paragraph) can be removed:


   "This document defines the transport mechanism which was removed from the main CMP specification

   with the second release and referred to be in a separate document."


Because, the following paragraphs describes very well the background, and justification of the new transport. There is no need to say whether the new transport was originally supposed to be part of the main spec or not.



Q1-2: In the 2nd paragraph, please add reference to HTTP on first occurrence.



Q1-3: The following statement is a little confusing:


   "During the long time it existed as draft, this RFC was undergoing drastic changes."


There hasn’t been any changes to the RFC, but to the draft. So, I would say something like:


            “Before this document was published as an RFC, the draft version underwent drastic changes during the work process.”



Section 2:



Q2-1: The section only contains the RFC 2119 terminology, but that is normally in a “Conventions” section.


Q2-2: As there are no requirements listed, I suggest to remove the section.




Section 3.2:



Q3_2-1: The text says:


“However, neither HTTP nor this protocol are designed to correlate messages on the same

            connection in any meaningful way;”


It is a little unclear what “this protocol” refers to.




Section 4:



Q4-1: It is a little unclear what is meant by “legacy implementations”. Do you consider implementations based on earlier versions of the draft as “legacy”? In my opinion a “legacy” implementation is based on a previously published standard/RFC.


So, if the section is supposed to cover issues with earlier versions of this draft, I think it should be called something else.