Here’s my AD review of the 8152bis algorithms document. — Section 8 —
There is a presumption in the way that this is laid out is that the algorithm identifier itself is not needed to be a part of this as it is specified in a different location. I find that very hard to read. The passive “there is a presumption”, the third “is” (I think “is that” is meant to be “in that”), and the unclear antecedents to “this” and “it” make it unclear. I would suggest a rephrasing, but I can’t follow it well enough to do that. Will you please rephrase it, perhaps starting with “The way <something> is laid out presumes that the algorithm identifier does not need to be part of <whatever> because <something clearer than what’s there>.” ? Thanks. Two different types of capabilities are defined: Capabilities for algorithms and capabilities for key structures. Nit: One capitalizes something after colon only if it’s a complete sentence, and this isn’t. So make it a lower-case “c”. Once defined by registration with IANA, the list capabilities is immutable. Nit: “list of capabilities”, yes? algorithm specific header parameters or key parameters, but they do Nit: hyphenate “algorithm-specific”. For a key, the first element should also be a key type value, while this means that this value will be duplicated if both an algorithm and key capability are used, the key type is needed in order to understand the rest of the values. I think this is two spliced sentences, and that it needs to be split after “key type value”. — Section 8.2 — the capabilities is set to the single entry of the key type “capabilities is”? What’s the correct fix for this? And what does “items” refer to in the next sentence? — Section 8.3 — In this section a trio of examples are provided. He-he… “three examples” is plural, so “are” is correct. But “a trio of examples” is singular, so it needs “is”. Please pick one. In all three cases the pair of capabilities is always provided as the algorithm and then the key capabilities. That feels awkward and a little confusing. Maybe this?: NEW In each case, the pair of capabilities designates first the algorithm and then the key capabilities. END — Section 9 — There has been an attempt to limit the number of places where the document needs to impose restrictions on how the CBOR Encoder needs to work. Both instances of “needs to” seem odd. For that matter, so does “there has been an attempt”. Maybe this, or something like it?: NEW This document limits the restrictions it imposes on how the CBOR Encoder can work. END — Section 10.2 — not done then the DE should be consulted final registration for this document is done. Is this missing the word “before”? Or “when”? — Section 10.3 — IANA is required to modify the description to "Public Key" Change “required” to “requested”. -- Barry _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
