Authors,
While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary)
the following questions, which are also in the source file.
1) <!--[rfced] We note that the title does not have a 1:1 match between
abbreviation and expansion (as was seen in the companions
documents). May we update as follows to match?
Original:
Certificate Management Messages over CMS (CMC): Compliance Requirements
Perhaps:
Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) Messages: Compliance Requirements
or
Certificate Management over CMS (CMC): Message Compliance Requirements
Other docs in cluster use:
Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)
Certificate Management over CMS (CMC): Transport Protocols
-->
2) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to the Terminology
section:
a) Perhaps the following might be added to the list in the Terminology
section (as there isn't an easy way to expand on first use)?
HMAC: Hashed Message Authentication Code
b) We note that the definition of POP in
draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5272bis-11 includes the different types of POP.
Should those be included in this document as well? Or perhaps a
pointer to draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5272bis-11?
-->
3) <!--[rfced] Is "for" correct here or should this be "with"?
Original:
* Replaced SHA-1 for SHA-256
* Replaced HMAC-SHA-1 for HMAC-SHA-256
Perhaps:
* Replaced SHA-1 with SHA-256
* Replaced HMAC-SHA-1 with HMAC-SHA-256
-->
4) <!-- [rfced] Section 6.3.1 of [CMC-STRUCT] is titled "Cryptographic
Linkage" while Section 6.3.1.1 is titled "POP Link Witness
Version 2 Controls". Should this link point to Section 6.3.1 or
6.3.1.1?'
Current:
Algorithm requirements for the Pop Link Witness Version 2 control
(Section 6.3.1 of [CMC-STRUCT]) are: SHA-256 MUST be implemented for
keyGenAlgorithm. PBKDF2 [PBKDF2] MAY be implemented for
keyGenAlgorithm. HMAC-SHA256 MUST be implemented for macAlgorithm.
-->
5) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions related to Table 1:
a) Note 4: should any updates be made to Note 4 to mention a third
condition (the DH key certification in Section 8)?
Original:
If an End-Entity implements Diffie-Hellman, it MUST implement either
the DH-POP Proof-of-Possession as defined in Section 4 of [DH-POP] or
the challenge-response POP controls id-cmc-encryptedPOP and
id-cmc-decryptedPOP.
b) The table says RA: SHOULD for RA POP Witness
(id-cmc-lraPOPWitness). But Section 9 says that RAs implementing
delegated POP MUST implement id-cmc-lraPOPWitness. Please review.
c) We note that the table uses lowercase "optional" while other
entries in the table are BCP 14 keywords. Please review if this is
intentional and/or if any text to clarify should be added.
-->
6) <!--[rfced] As this note appeared in RFC 5274, is this still true? Or
has development concluded?
Original:
An alternative method is under development to provide
this functionality.
-->
7) <!--[rfced] We had the following questions about terminology used
throughout the document:
a) We have updated uses of Authenticate Data to be Authenticated Data
to match the use in the other docs in the cluster. Please let us know
any objections.
-->
8) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically
result in more precise language, which is helpful for readers.
Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should
still be reviewed as a best practice.
-->
Thank you.
Megan Ferguson
RFC Production Center
*****IMPORTANT*****
RFC Author(s):
--------------
Instructions for Completing AUTH48
Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed and
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).
You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing
your approval.
Planning your review
---------------------
Please review the following aspects of your document:
* RFC Editor questions
Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor
that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as
follows:
<!-- [rfced] ... -->
These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.
* Changes submitted by coauthors
Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your
coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you
agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.
* Content
Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot
change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to:
- IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
- contact information
- references
* Copyright notices and legends
Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions
(TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
* Semantic markup
Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of
content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode>
and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at
<https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.
* Formatted output
Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the
formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is
reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting
limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.
Submitting changes
------------------
To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties
include:
* your coauthors
* [email protected] (the RPC team)
* other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g.,
IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the
responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
* [email protected], which is a new archival mailing list
to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion
list:
* More info:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
* The archive itself:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/
* Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out
of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you
have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded,
[email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and
its addition will be noted at the top of the message.
You may submit your changes in one of two ways:
An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format
Section # (or indicate Global)
OLD:
old text
NEW:
new text
You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.
We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text,
and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in
the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.
Approving for publication
--------------------------
To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.
Files
-----
The files are available here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10004.xml
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10004.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10004.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10004.txt
Diff file of the text:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10004-diff.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10004-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
Diff of the XML:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10004-xmldiff1.html
Tracking progress
-----------------
The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc10004
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you for your cooperation,
RFC Editor
--------------------------------------
RFC 10004 (draft-ietf-lamps-rfc5274bis)
Title : Certificate Management Messages over CMS (CMC): Compliance
Requirements
Author(s) : J. Mandel,
S. Turner
WG Chair(s) : Russ Housley, Tim Hollebeek
Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Christopher Inacio
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
