Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-pkix-pubkey-caps-

Request Review of draft-ietf-pkix-pubkey-caps
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 07)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2012-04-24
Requested 2012-04-12
Authors Jim Schaad
I-D last updated 2012-04-24
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Mary Barnes
Assignment Reviewer Mary Barnes
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-pkix-pubkey-caps by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Completed 2012-04-24
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-pubkey-caps-04.txt

Reviewer:  Mary Barnes

Review Date:  23 April 2012

IETF LC Date: 20 April 2012

IESG Telechat Date: 26 April 2012

Summary:  Almost ready (nits & minor issues).

Comments: There are quite a number of editorial nits, and a couple cases where
those result in lack of clarity, thus minor issues.  I am also assuming that
someone has validated the ASN.1 notation.

Minor Issues:


Section 1:

- 2nd paragraph:

 -- last sentence.  The phrase "most just consisted" in the following sentence
 is missing an object - most what?

   This was especially easy since most just

   consisted of the object identifier for the algorithm.

I think based on the context that it should be written as

"most values", but it's not entirely clear to me, or perhaps it should be "most

- 3rd paragraph:

  -- RFC 2119 language is used - "MUST NOT", however, there is no reference to
  RFC 2119 language, which is fine given this is an informational document.  It
  would seem that should be written lower case, in particular given this is an
  introduction, which in general shouldn't include normative language.

Section 4.2 & 4.3:

- there's a "(id-??)" in these two sections.  Is that intentional or should
that be referring to an explicit existing object identifier?

- There seems to be typos in the names of the ASN.1 elements that are being

  -- scap-ec-dh:  Shouldn't this be scap-pk-ecDH or am I just not understanding
  the notation here?

 -- scap-ec-MQV: Shouldn't this be scap-pk-ecMQV?



Section 1:

- 2nd paragraph:

  -- 1st sentence:  "senders" -> "sender's"

  -- 5th sentence:  "…were ever use." -> "…were ever used."

Section 1.1:

- 1st paragraph after description fields:

  "The square brackets defined optional …" ->  "The square brackets define

Section 2.2:

- 1st paragraph, last sentence: there's a stray "s" in the sentence after

Section 4.1:

- 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: "All most" -> "Almost"

Section 5:

- title: "RSASSA-PSS" ->  "RSA-SSA-PSS"

- second paragraph: there's inconsistent use of tense in these sentences.  I
would suggest changing"

  --  "it is always placed" -> "it was always placed"

  --  "meant that one can place" to "meant that one could place"

- last paragraph:  "…the assumption that entire matrix…" -> ""…the assumption
that the entire matrix…"

Section 6:

- 1st paragraph: "…that need to be taking into account…" ->  "…that need to be
taken into account…"

- 5th paragraph:  I don't find the first sentence helpful. I would find it much
easier to read if the 4th and 5th paragraphs were combined and the first
sentence of the 5th removed entirely and reword the 2nd sentence of the 5th as:

"However, passing too much information…"