OK. I guess you have addressed all of my comments.
-r
Deacon, Alex wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your comments. My responses are included inline.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ron Bonica [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 11:23 AM
>>To: Deacon, Alex; [email protected]
>>Subject: Genart review for draft-ietf-pkix-lightweight-ocsp-profile-05
>>
>>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft, currently
>>on an IESG
>>telechat agenda. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>><http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>>
>>Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before
>>posting a new version of the draft.
>>
>>Summary: This document is almost ready for publication as an
>>Informational RFC. However, I do have a few small questions,
>>listed below:
>>
>>1: Something about the formatting of this document caused the IETF ID
>>Nit-checker to go off the deep end. It detects the following problems
>>when many of them do not exist.
>>
>>idnits 1.103
>>
>>tmp/draft-ietf-pkix-lightweight-ocsp-profile-05.txt:
>>
>>
>> Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
>> * The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section.
>> * The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.
>> * The document seems to lack an Authors' Addresses Section.
>>
>> Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...
>>
>> the boilerplate looks good.
>>
>> * There are 1 instance of lines with non-RFC2606-compliant
>>FQDNs in the
>> document.
>>
>> Checking nits according to
>>http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
>> Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
>> 1id-guidelines.txt yet).
>>
>> Miscellaneous warnings:
>> None.
>>
>> Experimental warnings:
>> - Missing Reference: 'OCSP' is mentioned on line 616, but
>>not defined
>> - Missing Reference: 'OCSPMP' is mentioned on line 634, but
>>not defined
>> - Missing Reference: 'RFC2119' is mentioned on line 613,
>>but not defined
>> - Missing Reference: 'PKIX' is mentioned on line 621, but
>>not defined
>> - Missing Reference: 'HTTP' is mentioned on line 609, but
>>not defined
>> - Missing Reference: 'TLS' is mentioned on line 626, but not defined
>> - Missing Reference: 'TLSEXT' is mentioned on line 629, but
>>not defined
>> - Missing Reference: '0' is mentioned on line 757, but not defined
>> - Missing Reference: '1' is mentioned on line 688, but not defined
>> - Missing Reference: '3' is mentioned on line 841, but not defined
>>
>> Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed
>>information.
>
>
> I noticed that idnits was reporting false positives. I'll take a close
> look and see if I can get these errors to disappear. Its not clear to
> me that its necessary.
>
>
>>2: In section 1.1.1 you mandate the use of SHA1. Why SHA-1?
>>Are you sure
>>that it will be strong enough in the future?
>
>
> This only restricts the hash alg used in the CertID structure. SHA-1 is
> strong enough as the only intent here is to uniquely identify a single
> certificate.
>
>
>>3: In Section 5, you say that clients MUST cache responses?
>>Should that
>>be a MUST? Why? What would happen if the client didn't cache
>>responses.
>
>
> Responses must be cached to ensure the load on the infrastructure is
> kept to a minimum and to lessen the number of times a client "hit the
> wire". The latter being particularly important for constrained clients
> in low bandwidth high latency networks. This requirement has been
> discussed several times on and off the list and the consensus (IMO) was
> that MUST is what is necessary here.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
