Subject: [kitten] Shepherd review: draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-07

From: Matt Rogers <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:43 -0400

Hi,

During my review of draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-07, the idnits
checker brought up the following issues:

 Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  -------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

  ** The abstract seems to contain references ([RFC4556]), which it
     shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions of
the
     documents in question.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  -------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

  -- The document date (May 23, 2016) is 147 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  -------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative
references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '0' on line 224
     'cusec        [0] INTEGER (0..999999),...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '1' on line 225
     'ctime        [1] KerberosTime,...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '2' on line 228
     'nonce        [2] INTEGER (0..4294967295),...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '3' on line 231
     'paChecksum   [3] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,...'

  -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: '4' on line
     236
'freshnessToken     [4] OCTET STRING OPTIONAL,...'

  == Missing Reference: 'This RFC' is mentioned on line 261, but not
     defined
'| 150  | PA_AS_FRESHNESS | [This RFC] |...'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5349

     Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 6 comments
(--).

An updated document with these corrections, or some comments on these
for justification of leaving them be would be helpful.

Regards,
Matt

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:10:21 -0400 (EDT)

>  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

These two seem to be valid warnings, though the "147 days in the past" is
mostly just the chairs' fault.

>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

The idnits checker doesn't like our ASN.1 explicit tag values; there's
nothing we can do other than ignore the nits alerts.

> '| 150  | PA_AS_FRESHNESS | [This RFC] |...'

This one can probably be ignored as well.  There might be some magic text
that will have the idnits checker ignore the self-reference, but I don't
know what it is.

> for justification of leaving them be would be helpful.

An updated document would be nice, but the needed changes are small
enough that in my opinion they could be left as RFC Editor notes.

-Ben

---

From: Michiko Short <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:08:13 +0000

Ben or Matt, do you need me to update or are we good with the latest version?

Thanks,
Mich

-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Kaduk [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 9:10 PM
To: Matt Rogers <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [kitten] Shepherd review: draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-freshness-07

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016, Matt Rogers wrote:

>      shouldn't.  Please replace those with straight textual mentions 
> of the
>      documents in question.
>
>
>   Miscellaneous warnings:

These two seem to be valid warnings, though the "147 days in the past" is mostly just the chairs' fault.

>   Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

The idnits checker doesn't like our ASN.1 explicit tag values; there's nothing we can do other than ignore the nits alerts.

> '| 150  | PA_AS_FRESHNESS | [This RFC] |...'

This one can probably be ignored as well.  There might be some magic text that will have the idnits checker ignore the self-reference, but I don't know what it is.

> for justification of leaving them be would be helpful.

An updated document would be nice, but the needed changes are small enough that in my opinion they could be left as RFC Editor notes.

-Ben