Subject: [kitten] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility-04

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 12:21:29 -0800

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Has Nits

This is an OPS-DIR review of PKINIT Algorithm Agility
(draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility).  This ID updates PKINIT following the
guidelines in BCP 201 to make it algorithm agile and to expose acceptable
algorithms.

This is a very well written clear document.  I do not find any operational
issues with the document except that the document could use a section on
interoperability (old server-new client, new server-old client).

There are a few words about the topic deep in section 6 about the supportedKDFs
field but I do not see a general discussion or a discussion about the kdf
field. The text about the supportedKDFs field could be moved to a new section
and each of the old/new combinations could be addressed.  I see this as an
operational issue because compatibility issues are a frequent source of
operational headaches.

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 09:26:11 -0500

I am resending this because the review tool seems to have failed to properly distribute it

Scott

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [OPS-DIR] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-pkinit-alg-agility-04
> Date: February 17, 2019 at 3:21:29 PM EST
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
> 
> Reviewer: Scott Bradner
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-DIR mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-dir

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 08:28:42 -0600

Hi Scott,

I think the original at least partially worked, as the authors/shepherd
have told me they plan to update the document accordingly.

Thank you for the review!

-Ben

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 15:43:50 -0600

Hi Scott,

> operational issue because compatibility issues are a frequent source of

Thanks for the review.  The authors have posted an -05 that appears to
address your concerns.

Thanks to the authors for the updates!

-Ben

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 06:17:47 -0500

looks good to me

thanks

Scott

> On Feb 26, 2019, at 4:43 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Scott,
>