> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:13 PM
> To: The IESG <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Matthew Miller <[email protected]>
> Subject: Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-
> 09: (with COMMENT)
>
> 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/
[JLS] Some where it became /messages transported/
>
> Section 1.4:
> * Missing period at the end of the last sentence.
[JLS] Fixed
>
> Section 2:
> * "Part Section 9.1 of ..." -- remove "Part"
[JLS] Not my fault - it is xml2rfc that put it there. Put a note in the xml.
>
> Section 2.1:
> * "... collisions of this value leads to ..." -- s/leads/lead/
> * "(2 coordinate elliptic curve)" -- suggest "two" instead of "2"
[JLS] Definitely.
>
> 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.
[JLS] Fixed.
>
> Section 2.1.1:
> * "... truncate a hash function down ..." -- "down" feels redundant here
[JLS] done
>
> Section 2.2.1:
> * "... for this reason, they should not be used with the other algorithm." --
> I
> don't understand what this is saying.
[JLS] How about /they should not/the public key should not/?
>
> Section 3:
> * "Part Section 9.2 of ..." -- remove "Part"
> * "... such as MD5 has decreased over time; the security ..." -- s/;/,/
[JLS] See above.
>
> Section 3.2:
> * Where is "IV" defined?
[JLS] It is now.
>
> Section 3.2.1:
> * "Cipher Block Chaining (CBC) mode, if the same key ..." -- maybe add "In" at
> the front?
[JLS] Fixed.
>
> Section 4:
> * Errant "Part" at the front again.
[JLS] Ditto
>
> Section 5:
> * ... and again.
[JLS] Ditto
>
> Section 5.1:
> * I had to look up what a "bstr" is. Is that definition assumed to be
> imported
> from somewhere?
[JLS] Imported in the section "CBOR Grammar" but not explicitly done so.
>
> Section 6:
> * "Part" again.
[JLS] Ditto
>
> Section 8:
> * I don't understand the second paragraph of this section.
[JLS] See the message to Rob - The entire section has been drastically
re-written
>
> Section 10.2:
> * "... this registration, if this is ..." -- "If" should start a new
> sentence.
> * "... then the DE should be ..." -- s/DE/Designated Expert/
[JLS] Fixed.
>
> Section 11:
> * "One area that has been starting to get exposure is doing traffic ..." --
> the
> word "doing" feels out of place here
[JLS] Changed here and in -struct.
Jim
>
>
_______________________________________________
COSE mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
