Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As others have pointed out, the Abstract needs fixing. I'm surprised none of my colleagues thought the document status and downrefs problem isn't worthy of a DISCUSS, because it's important to get right. But as one of the newbies of the group I'll go along with them and merely pile on by mentioning it again. And lo, a bunch of editorial nits: Section 1: * "... small in terms of messages transport and implementation size ..." -- s/messages/message/ Section 1.4: * Missing period at the end of the last sentence. Section 2: * "Part Section 9.1 of ..." -- remove "Part" Section 2.1: * "... collisions of this value leads to ..." -- s/leads/lead/ * "(2 coordinate elliptic curve)" -- suggest "two" instead of "2" OLD: Other documents can define it to work with other curves and points in the future. NEW: Future documents may extend support to include other curves and points. Section 2.1.1: * "... truncate a hash function down ..." -- "down" feels redundant here Section 2.2.1: * "... for this reason, they should not be used with the other algorithm." -- I don't understand what this is saying. Section 3: * "Part Section 9.2 of ..." -- remove "Part" * "... such as MD5 has decreased over time; the security ..." -- s/;/,/ Section 3.2: * Where is "IV" defined? Section 3.2.1: * "Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode, if the same key ..." -- maybe add "In" at the front? Section 4: * Errant "Part" at the front again. Section 5: * ... and again. Section 5.1: * I had to look up what a "bstr" is. Is that definition assumed to be imported from somewhere? Section 6: * "Part" again. Section 8: * I don't understand the second paragraph of this section. Section 10.2: * "... this registration, if this is ..." -- "If" should start a new sentence. * "... then the DE should be ..." -- s/DE/Designated Expert/ Section 11: * "One area that has been starting to get exposure is doing traffic ..." -- the word "doing" feels out of place here _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
