Dear Lucy, Thank you very much for the careful review.
These are all good catches, especially the need to change several labels from "PKCS" to "PKCS1" to match the corresponding PKCS #1 v2.2 document: https://www.emc.com/collateral/white-papers/h11300-pkcs-1v2-2-rsa-cryptography-standard-wp.pdf My co-authors may have additional feedback. n Burt From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:22 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org; draft-moriarty-pk...@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Gem-art] Gem-ART review of draft-moriaty-pkcs1-03 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq> Document: draft-moriaty-pkcs1-03 Reviewer: Lucy Yong Review Date: 15 September 2016 IETF LC End Date: 2 September 2016 Summary: The document is well written, and is ready for publication as Informational RFC. IPR considerations are in Appendix D. Major Issues: None Minor Issues: * Several places use xxx-PKCS-v1_5, should it be xxx-PKCS1-v1_5? where xxx may be EMSA, RSAES, and RSASSA. Editorial Issues: * Please check the Idnits tool * Page 18: s/k - 2hLen -2/k - 2hLen - 2/ * Page 18: s/"knowing"the/"knowing" the/ * Page 40: s/ -- such as the salt value in EMSA-PSS --/ such as the salt value in EMSA-PSS/ * replace Section 7.2.2. title with "Decryption operation" * In Section 8.2, s/Note:/Note./ (to be consistent with the rest of doc.) * Section 8.2 last paragraph, replace "recommended" with "RECOMMENDED" Regards, Lucy
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Genemail@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art