Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-countersign-09: Discuss
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-countersign/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-cose-countersign-09 CC @larseggert Thanks to Elwyn Davies for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/jrTPQpNSafEhkpyMYn3r250_ghM). ## Discuss ### IANA This document seems to have unresolved IANA issues. Holding a DISCUSS for IANA, so we can determine next steps during the telechat. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ## Comments ### Missing references No reference entries found for: `[RFC8949]`. ### Inclusive language Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and more guidance: * Term `traditional`; alternatives might be `classic`, `classical`, `common`, `conventional`, `customary`, `fixed`, `habitual`, `historic`, `long-established`, `popular`, `prescribed`, `regular`, `rooted`, `time-honored`, `universal`, `widely used`, `widespread` ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Outdated references Reference `[RFC8152]` to `RFC8152`, which was obsoleted by `RFC9052` and `RFC9053` (this may be on purpose). ### Grammar/style #### Section 1, paragraph 3 ``` structure where there is no cryptographic computed value. The new algorithm d ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Make sure that the adjective "cryptographic" is correct. Possibly, it should be an adverb (typically ~ly) that modifies "computed". Possibly, it should be the first word in a compound adjective (hyphenated adjective). Possibly, it is correct. #### Section 1, paragraph 5 ``` mar CBOR grammar in this document is uses the CBOR Data Definition Language ^^^^^^^ ``` The verb form seems incorrect. #### Section 1.2, paragraph 7 ``` of the context can come from several different sources including: protocol i ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Consider using "several". #### Section 3.2, paragraph 1 ``` untersignature needs to have all of it's cryptographic functions finalized b ^^^^ ``` Did you mean "its" (possessive pronoun) instead of "it's" (short for "it is")? #### Section 3.3, paragraph 22 ``` Value Registry column will be blank and the Reference column will be [[This ^^^^ ``` Use a comma before "and" if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short). #### Section 7, paragraph 4 ``` e and algorithm in the document. Currently examples dealing with countersign ^^^^^^^^^ ``` A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Currently". ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
