Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review: draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error-05

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:25:29 -0600

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>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-housley-ct-keypackage-receipt-n-error-05
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 26 Nov 2013
IETF LC End Date: 27 Nov 2013
IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled

Summary: Ready

Two nit-level comments:

I found the formulation 'The key package error content type MUST be 
signed if the entity generating it is capable of signing it' awkward. 
Protocols break if you don't follow a MUST. As written, this says its ok 
to break the protocol. Is this, instead, really trying to say something 
about the thing that's going to evaluate the error content type (like 
"expect a signature unless you're explicitly configured to allow a lack 
of one")?

The word "above" in "Error codes above this point" is ambiguous. It can 
mean either "earlier in the document" or "with numbers greater than this 
value".
That ambiguity may be harmless (it's easy to resolve by looking at the 
referenced document), but if you want to remove it, I suggest saying 
"The error codes listed here with values <=33".