Subject: draft-ietf-krb-wg-pkinit-alg-agility-02 review

From: Shawn M Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:15:50 -0600

Here is my review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-pkinit-alg-agility-02:

Overall:
This is improved from the previous revision that I read.  Thanks.

Abstract:
Replace SHA with SHA-1

Introduction:
Add RFC reference to "... 3.2.3 of [RFC4556] ..."

Are there any length limits for the Introductions?

Don't nonces in the protocol negate the affect of potential collisions?

6. KDF agility

New update drafts have to be created as new KDFs become available?

nit: "cryptographic bindings" should be "cryptographic binding"
nit: "thus addresses" should be "thus addressing"

Why are the "...," strings defined?

What if the id request is disjoint from the supported list by the server?

Why is pkinit-kdf-ah-sha256 the limiting algorithm?

7. Security Considerations

Should we add a sentence that talks about policy?  For example:

Client policy can dictate whether new hash algorithms can be used by 
rejecting KDC replies that do not have a KDF field.  KDCs can also 
enforce the use of new hash algorithms by rejecting client requests that 
do not include supportedKDFs.

10.1. Normative References

nit: remove March here "CryptographyMarch"

Shawn.
--