Subject: [Anima] Pls. fix nits for draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-16

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 05:33:41 +0200

As i haven't seen replies to the original email i sent 2 weeks ago wrt.
to nits for the draft, i'll append it again here. I have also appended
these these nits to the shepherd writeup for the benefit of AD/IETF/IESG
reviewers as i have just finished the shepherd writeup and pushed the
document to the IESG.

Cheers
    Toerless

Dear authors of draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra
Please review and accordingly resolve the following nits in revision -16.
These are result of shepherd lookup and from Brian:

A) Downward references

RFC3542 is a normative reference that is not referenced in the document
        either remove or move into informational so as not to create an 
	unnecessary normative downward reference.

RFC7228 is a normative reference referenced in the document even though
        it is an informational document. I am writing into the shepherd doc
	that i think this is an appropriate downrev given how we only
	use it for terminology but derive requirements through classifications
	by that terminology ("constrained").

	let me know if from your experience you think this is inappropriate
	and you'd rather like to move it to informational.

B) IANA

There is one candidate NIT where i am looking for your guidance, also
given possible future work:

The IANA section asks for the creation of a registry entitled:
_Voucher Status Telemetry Attributes_. Even if IANA allocates registries
with just one table, i am going to suggest that the ask is changed to
create a registry "Voucher Parameter registry" with one table
called "Voucher Status Telemetry Attribute".  Especially in the likely
expectation that future work might come up with more voucher parameters.
Please change the wording in the IANA section accordingly.

C) Expert reviewer

Any suggested expert reviewer for the new voucher registry 
Short of an answer, If not, i'll recommend IANA to ask authors of RFC8366.

D) https://github.com/anima-wg/anima-bootstrap/issues/66

rev -16 section 5.2 has an unresolved EDNOTE pointing to a section for "Pledge Authorization". That section was last D.1.3.2. in -07 and was then removed when D.* was integrated back and the rest of D was removed in -08.

I can not find offhand any stubs of D.1.3.2 integrated elsewhere into the text, so i would suggest to reintroduce an appropriate subset of that section (aka: anything you think is uncontentuous).