Subject: [Gen-art] review of draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-11.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:15:18 +0200

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

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pubkey-11.txt
Reviewer: Francis Dupont
Review Date: 20150911
IETF LC End Date: 20150923
IESG Telechat date: unknown

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:
 - ToC page 2 and 6 page 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

 - 1 page 3: IMHO the choice of the SubjectPublicKeyInfo format is
  the right one.

 - 3 page 4: is a a very -> is a very

 - A.1 page 8 and A.2 page 10: i.e. -> i.e.,

 - A pages 7 - 10: BTW I used your 2 examples to add new unit tests in
  an application crypto library so I can confirm the 2 SPKIs are correct.

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 14:19:48 +0300

>  - ToC page 2 and 6 page 6: Acknowledgements -> Acknowledgments

Hmmm:

~/ietf-mirror/rfc>fgrep -l Acknowledgements rfc*.txt | wc -l 
    2961
~/ietf-mirror/rfc>fgrep -l Acknowledgments rfc*.txt | wc -l  
    1998

So in the RFCs the version with middle "e" seems to be winning, i.e.
60% RFCs use that version. On the other hand there is 73 RFCs which
use both spellings... I think I will stick with the spelling I am used
to as both of them seems to be acceptable. 

>  - 3 page 4: is a a very -> is a very

Fixed. 

>  - A.1 page 8 and A.2 page 10: i.e. -> i.e.,

Fixed. 

>   an application crypto library so I can confirm the 2 SPKIs are correct.

Good to know. Thanks for testing them.
-- 
[email-masked]