Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-08

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 22:52:48 -0700

Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review result: Ready

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-??
Reviewer: Pete Resnick
Review Date: 2017-04-05
IETF LC End Date: 2017-04-06
IESG Telechat date: 2017-04-13

Summary: Ready

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments: Looks fine from a non-security-expert's
perspective. It is my duty to ask about keyid in section 2.1:

      A "keyid" parameter SHOULD be a UTF-8
      [RFC3629] encoded string, particularly where the identifier
might
      need to appear in a textual form.

I presume that simply means "might need to be rendered" and does not
include "might need to be typed in by someone", correct? The former is
easy; the latter probably requires a bit more text.

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:05:14 -0400

Pete, thank you for your review.
Alissa

> On Apr 6, 2017, at 1:52 AM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Pete Resnick
> Review result: Ready
>

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 16:49:12 +1000

Thanks Pete,

> easy; the latter probably requires a bit more text.

Indeed.  Until we have a good copy-and-paste version of the Unicode
typed/spoken/interpretive-danced input problem for security
identifiers, it is not a goal to have specifications casually tackling
problems that are outside their (and maybe anyone's) capabilities.

I made the suggested change in the editor's copy.