I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 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. Document: draft-ietf-smime-3278bis-07.txt Reviewer: Miguel Garcia <[email protected]> Review Date: 27-May-2009 IETF LC End Date: 28-May-2009Summary: The document is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC. There are a number of minor/nits comments.
Comments:- In Section 7, I am missing a normative reference to ASN.1. Probably this is either [X.680] or the same reference used by draft-ietf-smime-new-asn1:
[ASN1-2002]
ITU-T, "ITU-T Recommendation X.680, X.681, X.682, and
X.683", ITU-T X.680, X.681, X.682, and X.683, 2002.
- Similarly, in Section 7.1.1 there should be normative references to
SHA1-, SHA-224, SHA-256, etc.
- There are a number of notes at the end of Sections 7.1.2 and 7.1.3. These notes, contains a normative text (the word OPTIONAL). I believe a note should be informative in nature, thus, it should not contain RFC-2119 reserved words. Perhaps the text should be promoted outside a note.
- Section 7.1.3, the text mentions ECDSA with SHA-1, ECDSA with SHA-224, etc... Is there a reference to add here? The same question is applicable to Sections 7.1.4, 7.1.5, etc. Even Section 8. I believe all these should be normative references.
- Honestly, I didn't understand the IANA Considerations section. I don't undersetand if IANA needs to take an action or not, and if it needs to do it, which is the registry they should act upon and which values they should assign. This should be clarified.
Cheers,
Miguel
--
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
