Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-art telechat review of draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-05

From: Elwyn Davies <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:05:39 +0000

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 wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

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

Document: draft-wallace-est-alt-challenge-05.txt
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2016/03/11
IETF LC End Date: 2016/03/09
IESG Telechat date: 2016/03/17

Summary:  Ready with minor nits and a (new) downref issue for RFC 2985 
(importation of PKCS #9).  Thanks for addressing my comments on -04 at 
last call.

Major issues:
None

Minor issues:
Downref issue: idnits identifies three downref issues:
- RFC 5912 was in the previous version and is in the downref registry 
already, so needn't concern us.
- RFC 2985 has been moved from Informative in -04 to Normative in -05.  
Since RFC 2985 is a reproduction of a a external standard, I don't think 
there should be any issue here, but the reference probably ought to be 
normative, and should have been called out in the last call - apologies 
for failing to point this out in my LC review.
-RFC 7107 is only used to flag the definition of the SMI Security for 
S/MIME Attributes registry.  I think this could safely be taken as 
informative.

Thus the only real issue is with RFC 2985.

Nits/editorial comments:
Abstract: Must not have references s/[RFC2985]/(RFC 2985)/

s3: Currently s3.1 states in the text that the maximum length of the 
DirectoryString is 255.  ss3.2 and 3.3 have this defined in the ASN.1 
but not in the text.  It would make things consistent if this was stated 
in para 2 of s3:
s/defined as a DirectoryString/defined as a DirectoryString with maximum 
length 255/

s4, last para: s/(see [RFC7030], s3.7 second paragraph)/(see Section 3.7 
of [RFC3070])/

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:10:58 +0000

2985 is a normative reference in 5750 which is standards track
so I think we can safely claim precedent and I can put 2985 in the
downref registry if nobody objects.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:56:38 +0000

Thanks again Elwyn for your careful reviews!

> downref registry if nobody objects.

Stephen, I agree that this should be sufficient. Please bring this up on the IESG call and lets make it so.

Jari