Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04
review-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04-genart-lc-davies-2013-03-22-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 08) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
| Deadline | 2013-03-29 | |
| Requested | 2013-03-21 | |
| Authors | Yngve N. Pettersen | |
| Draft last updated | 2013-03-22 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -04
by
Elwyn B. Davies
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Hilarie Orman (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Elwyn B. Davies |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04-genart-lc-davies-2013-03-22
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 08) | |
| Result | Ready with Issues | |
| Completed | 2013-03-22 |
review-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04-genart-lc-davies-2013-03-22-00
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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call
comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04.txt
Reviewer:
Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 22 March 2013
IETF LC End Date:
29 March 2013
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
-
Summary:
Almost ready for IESG - one possible minor issue relating to the
alleged criterion for ordering CertificateStatusRequestItems plus a
number of nits that are mainly missing cross references and notes
for clarity about updates of RFC 6066 items.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
s2.2:
The list of CertificateStatusRequestItem entries MUST be in order of
preference.
Having thought a bit about this, I cannot identify what the
preference criterion is - this may be because I don't understand the
problem, but I think you need to explain what the criterion is if
there really is one. If there *is* a criterion, it must be clear
whether the order is most preferred first or least preferred first.
Since I don't know what the criterion is, I can't tell if there are
any security implications from the ordering: no chance of downgrade
attacks?
Nits/editorial comments:
s2:
The presentation format used should be referenced back to s4 of RFC
5246.
s2.1:
A reference to s1.1 of RFC 6066 where extension_type is defined is
needed, and it should be made more clear that this an expansion of
the existing type.
s2.2:
A reference to s7.4.1.4 of RFC 5246 where extension_data is defined
is needed.
s2.2, page 4:
Might be good to be more explicit that the definition of
CertificateStatusRequest is an extension of the definition in RFC
6066. Also the definition of OSCPStatusRequest duplicates the one
in RFC 6066 and should be noted as such. It would also be more
appropriate if it came before CertificateStatusRequest as it is used
in CertificateStatusRequest.
s2.2, para 4 on page 5:
In the case of the "id-pkix-ocsp-nonce" OCSP extension, [
RFC2560
] is
unclear about its encoding; for clarification,.....
This probably needs to be flagged up in the IANA considerations so
that an additional reference is added to the registry.
ALSO I subsequently noted that this same caveat is already in RFC
6066. Consider referring to the caveat there rather than
duplicating it.
s2.2, para 5 on page 5:
s/A server that receive a client hello/A server that receives a
client hello/
s2.2, page 5/6:
Might be good to be more explicit that the definition of
CertificateStatus is an extension of the definition in RFC 6066.
Also the definition of OSCPResponse duplicates the one in RFC 6066
and should be noted as such. It would also be more appropriate if
it came before CertificateStatus as it is used in CertificateStatus.
s2.2, page 6:
The definition of OCSPResponseList should come before the
redefinition of CertificateStatus as it is used in
CertificateStatus.
s2.2, para 2 after structure definitions on page 6:
A reference to s7.4.2 of RFC 5246 for the Certificate list would be
helpful.