Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols-
review-ietf-pkix-cmp-transport-protocols-genart-lc-holmberg-2012-05-14-00

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at <
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.



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.





Regards,



Christer