Last Call Review of draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-
review-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-secdir-lc-lonvick-2010-04-15-00
Request | Review of | draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 02) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2010-04-16 | |
Requested | 2010-04-01 | |
Authors | Russ Housley , Sean Turner | |
I-D last updated | 2010-04-15 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -??
by Chris M. Lonvick
|
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Chris M. Lonvick |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Completed | 2010-04-15 |
review-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-secdir-lc-lonvick-2010-04-15-00
Hi, I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. Overall, I do not see any particular security concerns. The document appears to be in good shape and ready for publication. Not finding anything of particular importance to note about the concepts, I started looking at the nits. Section 1 - The following is an awkward sentence: The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) specification [RFC5652] defines means to... Perhaps: The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) specification [RFC5652] defines mechanisms to... (Means means so many different things.) Section 1 also says: This document also defines an unprotected attribute for use with one of the key management options supported by the encrypted key package content type. Not being a crypto geek, I'm left guessing which this is. It's not specifically called out in the document, and the implications of using it are not called out in the Security Considerations section. Why are you asking the RFC Editor to remove the IANA Considerstions section? Maybe I missed it, but I havn't seen any discussion about not having an IANA Considerations section if you don't have anything for the IANA to do. I can see Informational and Experimental RFCs not having anything, but IMHO a Standards Track document should have an IANA Considerations ection even if it is just to say that nothing needs to be done. Regards, Chris