Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 09:45:49 +0300

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-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date: 2010-4-18

IESG Telechat date: 2010-4-22

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. I have
some nits

Nits/editorial comments:

1.	In section 7 what you are registering is a media subtype and not a
media type. The media type is application. So "defines a new media type"
should be "defines a new media subtype" and "Registration of media type"
should be "Registration of media subtype".
2.	The document defines new object identifiers like
id-ct-KP-aKeyPackage and AsymmetricKeyPackageModuleV1.  Where is the list of
these identifiers kept and how do you update this list in order to guarantee
the uniqueness of these identifiers.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:37:23 -0400

Roni,

Thanks for your review.  Comments inline.

spt

> should be "Registration of media subtype".

I'll add this in.

> the uniqueness of these identifiers.

I got the OIDs for the content types and asn.1 module out of two arcs. 
Both OIDs are unique.  Technically, we'd never update an OID.  Once it's 
registered it's registered.  If we need a new OID, then we don't 
necessarily have to go back to the same arc - but I'm sure we could. 
The module OID I got from the SMIME Arc, which is administered by Russ 
Housley and it's been delegated from IANA to SMIME.  The other I got out 
of a DoD arc.   I should add the following the IANA considerations 
sections to make this clear:

This document makes use of object identifiers to identify a CMS content 
and the ASN.1 module found in Appendix A.  The CMS content type OID is 
registered in a DoD arc.  The ASN.1 module OID is registered in an arc 
delegated by IANA to the SMIME Working Group.  No further action by IANA 
is necessary for this document or any anticipated updates.

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:06:19 +0300

Hi,
I will provide an example
This draft defines

   AsymmetricKeyPackageModuleV1 
     { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) 
       smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-asymmetricKeyPkgV1(50) } 

RFC 5652 defines

CryptographicMessageSyntax2004
     { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
       pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) cms-2004(24) }

In this case the id-mod-asymmetricKeyPkgV1(50) is not the same as
cms-2004(24) so they are different but how do you know that 50 is not used
by other draft.

Look at Alfred H־nes email. I think that updating the specific registries is
important. I know that they are not maintained by IANA but hopefully someone
is maintain them and need to be notified of these two OIDs allocations.

Thanks
Roni Even

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Turner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 8:37 PM
> To: Roni Even
> Cc: 'General Area Review Team'; [email-masked]; draft-turner-
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-turner-
> asymmetrickeyformat-05
> 
> Roni,
>

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:18:55 -0400

> is maintain them and need to be notified of these two OIDs allocations.

Ah, I got both OIDs by asking for them.  I only put them in the document 
after I had them registered to ensure we wouldn't have collisions.  The 
earlier versions of the ID had "tbd" as place holders until I officially 
got them registered.

spt

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 08:15:28 +0300

Hi,
This was my question, if you registered the OIDs then it is OK.

Roni Even

> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 11:19 PM
> To: Roni Even
> >>> Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed
> Standard.
> >> I have
> >>> some nits
> >>>
> >>> Nits/editorial comments:
> >>>
> >>> 1.	In section 7 what you are registering is a media subtype
> and not
> >> a
> >>> id-ct-KP-aKeyPackage and AsymmetricKeyPackageModuleV1.  Where is
> the
> >> list of