On 10/03/17 12:57, Russ Housley wrote: > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review result: Not Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-anima-voucher-05 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review Date: 2017-10-03 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-112 > IESG Telechat date: unknown > > Summary: Not Ready > > Major Concerns: > > Please do not reference RFC 2315. The is a full Internet Standard that > should be used instead. Please reference RFC 5652, which goes back to > PKCS#7 as follows: > > PKCS#7 --> RFC 2315 --> RFC 2630 --> RFC 3369 --> RFC 3852 --> RFC 5652
I think that we have rough concensus among the authors that we should
make this change, and some of the
push back from developers has gone away. We are working for determine
if we can get rid of all the push back.
I am working on some changes to the text of section 6.
> Minor Concerns:
>
> I think it would be very helpful to include a diagram something like
> this in Section 6. Perhaps all of the CMS discussion belongs in a
> separate subsection. I did this to see if everything that is needed
> was specified, and I learned that the eContentType was not defined.
I agree with both your points.
> EncapsulatedContentInfo {
> eContentType !!! NOT SPECIFIED YET !!!
Will any OID do from any arc? Can I just pick a value from my
companies' PEN, or is are there some more traditional arc managed by
IANA that we should look to? RFC5652 does not even have an IANA
Considerations....
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
