Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-dilithium-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/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-dilithium/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In Section 5, the reference for the registry where the registrations should be made is to the entire COSE/JOSE registry groups, and the particular registries are not specified until Section 8. I initially thought the values requested were incorrect but then realized I was looking at the wrong registry on that page. In Section 8, however, the registries are referenced by name and the link to the registry is omitted. I think this could be made clearer by putting all the registration information in Section 8 (including links to specific registries) and focusing Section 5 on the use of the registered values. In Section 7.3, the normative requirement represented by "only a length check MUST be performed" is unclear. Should this be read "MUST NOT perform any checks other than length" or "MUST perform a length check and MAY perform additional checks as appropriate"? Or is this instead reflecting that a requirement already exists elsewhere and should be "a length check is required by Section x.y of [RFCabcd]"? ===NITS FOLLOW=== - Section 5, "needed, see" => "needed; see" - Section 7, "specification, see" => "specification; see" _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
