Subject: [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART Review of draft-nystrom-ct-kip-01.txt

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:43:55 -0400

Magnus, et al,

	I have reviewed the updated version of this draft and I feel
that it more than adequately addresses my comments.

--
Eric 

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Magnus Nyström [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 7:41 AM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: Russ Housley; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-nystrom-ct-kip-01.txt
--> 
--> Eric,
--> 
--> Thanks very much for your review. Just a couple of quick comments:
--> 
--> > In section 3.7.1 - you say:
--> >
--> > "The XML format for CT-KIP messages have been designed to be
--> > extensible.  However, it is possible that the use of 
--> extensions will
--> > harm interoperability and therefore any use of extensions 
--> should be
--> > carefully considered."
--> >
--> > Can we say anything about what "harm interoperability" or 
--> "carefully
--> > considered" means?  What are the risks?  How can they be avoided?
--> > Is there a reference you can point to that talks about the issues?
--> 
--> I can add an explanation and example (of course, it means 
--> the document 
--> won't be a true republication anymore, but this can be 
--> clarified in the 
--> abstract).
--> 
--> > In section 3.8.6 (CT-KIP server's second PDU), on pages 27 and 28,
--> > I am having trouble matching message fields (shown on 
--> page 27) with
--> > descriptions (given on pages 27 and 28).
--> 
--> The initial fields in the description are attributes 
--> inherited from the 
--> abstract type (c.f. 3.8.5 that makes it explicit that the Version 
--> attribute is inherited from the abstract type). I can clarify this.
--> 
--> I agree with your suggestions for the nits, but will, as 
--> you propose, hold 
--> back on making any changes until all comments have been 
--> received and Russ 
--> has had a chance to discuss them with me.
--> 
--> -- Magnus
--> 
--> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, Gray, Eric wrote:
--> 
--> > Magnus,
--> >
--> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for:
--> >
--> > 	draft-nystrom-ct-kip-01.txt
--> >
--> > For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
--> > <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
--> >
--> >
--> > Please wait for instructions from Russ Housley before
--> > taking any action on these comments.
--> >
--> > This document is nearly ready for publication as an
--> > Informational RFC.
--> >
--> > I have some questions/comments and a few very minor
--> > NITs.
--> >
--> > Comments:
--> > ========
--> >
--> > General Comment:
--> > ---------------
--> >
--> > The abstract claims this is almost entirely a literal
--> > republication of a document produced by the OTPS service
--> > of RSA Laboratories - who intends to retain change control.
--> > The abstract specifically excludes the Intellectual Propety,
--> > and IANA, Considerations sections.
--> >
--> > I'm not sure what that means with respect to handling of
--> > comments relative to the "republished" material.
--> >
--> > Also, it's a minor point but, unless the previous document
--> > was also an RFC (I saw no indication that this was true),
--> > there are quite a few other portions of the current draft
--> > that probably did not exist in the original document (RFC
--> > boiler-plate, reference sections and author information,
--> > for example).
--> >
--> > Perhaps this is implied by the phrase "body of this ..."
--> >
--> > I read through the document.  It appears to be well thought
--> > out and written, and I did not see anything that is ambiguous
--> > or obviously unclear - although (not being an expert in this
--> > area) some sections just eluded comprehension for me.
--> >
--> > Specific Comments/Questions:
--> > ---------------------------
--> >
--> > In section 3.7.1 - you say:
--> >
--> > "The XML format for CT-KIP messages have been designed to be
--> > extensible.  However, it is possible that the use of 
--> extensions will
--> > harm interoperability and therefore any use of extensions 
--> should be
--> > carefully considered."
--> >
--> > Can we say anything about what "harm interoperability" or 
--> "carefully
--> > considered" means?  What are the risks?  How can they be avoided?
--> > Is there a reference you can point to that talks about the issues?
--> >
--> > 
--> ------------------------------------------------------------
--> ---------
--> >
--> > In section 3.8.6 (CT-KIP server's second PDU), on pages 27 and 28,
--> > I am having trouble matching message fields (shown on 
--> page 27) with
--> > descriptions (given on pages 27 and 28).
--> >
--> > 
--> ------------------------------------------------------------
--> ---------
--> >
--> > NITs:
--> > ----
--> >
--> > In section 5.2.1, the last sentence would be better worded as:
--> >
--> > "Sections 5.2.2 through 5.2.7 analyze these attack scenarios."
--> >
--> > 
--> ------------------------------------------------------------
--> ---------
--> >
--> > In section 6 (IANA Considerations), you say:
--> >
--> > "None at this point; the MIME type is already registered."
--> >
--> > The document mentions several MIME types.  I assume you meant:
--> > "application/vnd.otps.ct-kip+xml" in this case (as opposed to
--> > - for instance - "image/jpeg" or "image/gif").
--> >
--> > I would change the section to read either -
--> >
--> > "None at this point; the MIME type (section 4.2.2) is already
--> > registered."
--> >
--> > OR
--> >
--> > "IANA has no action with respect to this document."
--> >
--> >
--> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art