Hi, On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 09:21 Bas Westerbaan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the review. > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 8:03 PM Mallory Knodel via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Document: draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates >> Title: Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure - Algorithm Identifiers >> for the >> Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM) Reviewer: >> Mallory >> Knodel Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area >> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed >> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just >> like any other last call comments. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> >> <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.ietf.org_en_group_gen_GenArtFAQ&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=lfBUntbWDFEKo_xQr6sYc6eO-qGNoOPfQBLabEUhUtrTIzIa182vO6cH87vKG8EA&s=sNdRI_uiMpr-EAUniD0ZJ8QETyGXY3mL3ys6XrDXqoo&e=> >> >. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates-?? >> Reviewer: Mallory Knodel >> Review Date: 2025-06-09 >> IETF LC End Date: 2025-06-06 >> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat >> >> Summary: The draft defines how ML-KEM is represented in X.509. It defines >> algorithm identifiers, public- and private-key structures, key-usage >> semantics, >> and provides examples. It's certainly thorough, and follows related RFCs >> well. >> >> Major issues: None. >> >> Minor issues: None. >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> * Suggest slight rewrite for the second of the two sentences in Section >> 5: "If >> the keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that indicates >> id-alg-ml-kem-* in the SubjectPublicKeyInfo, then the keyEncipherment >> bit MUST >> be the only key usage set." > > > Rewrote in https://github.com/lamps-wg/kyber-certificates/pull/126 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_lamps-2Dwg_kyber-2Dcertificates_pull_126&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=lfBUntbWDFEKo_xQr6sYc6eO-qGNoOPfQBLabEUhUtrTIzIa182vO6cH87vKG8EA&s=z0MF7pBIVDRMOmHxjFYVE2AkkW7gxxJgvb3Xn5gGgOs&e=> > I’d suggest trying to use the word ‘bit’ in the explanation as well as the heading, which my suggestion does but your change doesn’t do. <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_lamps-2Dwg_kyber-2Dcertificates_pull_126&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=krANNudPSfUTEf2kXiduBUqRjXhDsKNCASr1kibHLfs&m=lfBUntbWDFEKo_xQr6sYc6eO-qGNoOPfQBLabEUhUtrTIzIa182vO6cH87vKG8EA&s=z0MF7pBIVDRMOmHxjFYVE2AkkW7gxxJgvb3Xn5gGgOs&e=> > > >> * Section 8: Private Key Consistency TESTING >> > > I'm not quite sure what you mean with this. Could you elaborate? > > The heading has a typo. * Section 9: Suggest pulling in simply the headings or abstract of what is >> included in draft-sfluhrer-cfrg-ml-kem-security-considerations, making >> this >> paragraph just one sentence longer, which could help the reader to know >> on the >> order of what security considerations might be explained further. >> > > I couldn't think of any particular bits to highlight, so I tweaked and > moved the sentence instead. Does this help? > https://github.com/lamps-wg/kyber-certificates/pull/126 > I can only detect that you’ve moved one sentence to later in the section, and now you have two sentences back to back, saying: “For more guidance, see {{?I-D.sfluhrer-cfrg-ml-kem-security-considerations}}. “For more detailed ML-KEM specific security considerations refer to {{?I-D.sfluhrer-cfrg-ml-kem-security-considerations}}.” How about, “For more detailed ML-KEM specific security considerations for key generation, encapsulation, décapsulation and parameter sets, refer to { {?I-D.sfluhrer-cfrg-ml-kem-security-considerations}}.” * Each subsection of Appendix C has repeated text that could be placed in >> the >> stacked head of that section. Furthermore one might use that intro text >> space >> before each subsection to point out anything that the reader might want >> to >> know or not be able to spot when holding them side-by-side. So, rather >> tell >> then show. Or, both show and tell, please. For readability and utility >> to the >> reader. >> > > Personally I like the repetition: it's quite hard to scroll past all the > blocks of hex for the common text, but happy to make the change. > If you want to repeat yourself that’s entirely your editorial prerogative. My comment about telling the reader the significant differences between each section turns this appendix from a “spot the difference” game into helpful guidance. -M > > Thanks for the great work! >> > > Thank you! > > Best, > > Bas > > > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Spasm mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
