Subject: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-eastlake-rfc6931bis-xmlsec-uris-19

From: Peter Yee via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:24:50 -0800

Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review result: Ready with Nits

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-eastlake-rfc6931bis-xmlsec-uris-19
Reviewer: Peter Yee
Review Date: 2021-12-14
IETF LC End Date: 2021-12-15
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This update document corrects the IANA’s XML Security URIs registry.
It also fixes errata in RFC 6931. There are a few nits that should be fixed
prior to publication. [Ready with Nits]

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

General:

Replace all occurrences of “US National Institute of Science and Technology”
with “US National Institute of Standards and Technology”. While I’m sure they
would appreciate the upgrade to their remit (along with a concomitant increase
in funding), I suspect the the old US National Bureau of Standards still wants
to be known for being in the standards business. Sort of like the IETF. ;-)

Specific:

Page 11, section 2.2.3, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “It’s” to “Its”.

Page 12, section 2.2.6, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: append a comma after
“stateful”.

Page 13, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence (fragment?): append a colon at the end of
the fragment “An example of use is”. Do the same in the equivalent place in
each of the 2.3.x sections.

Page 13, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “pre-pended” to “prepended”.

Page 15, 1st paragraph, last sentence: append a comma after RIPEMD160.

Page 15, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence: append “to” after “referred”.

Page 16, section 2.3.8, 1st paragraph, last fragment: append a colon after the
fragment. For consistency and readability, add blanks lines around the “hex”
line as was done in section 2.3.1.

Page 19, section 2.3.12, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “advatages” to
“advantages”.

Page 19, section 2.3.12, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change “choosen” to
“chosen”.

Page 20, end of section 2.4: there appears to be an extra blank line compared
to other section separators. What can I say?

Page 21, section 2.6.1, 1st paragraph, last sentence (fragment): append a colon.

Page 23, section 2.6.5, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence: change “128-bit key sizes”
to “a 128-bit key size”.

Page 25, section 2.7.2, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “exacty” to
“exactly”.

Page 27, section 3: append a comma after “below”. Append a comma after “3.2”.

Page 32, section 4.1, last paragraph. This text essentially reiterates the note
from the beginning of the section about the part of the URI being omitted.
Perhaps the text could also be omitted as repetitious?

Page 35, last paragraph: while not harmful, the text in this paragraph almost
completely mirrors the text in the first paragraph of the section on page 32.
Perhaps this one can be deleted?

Page 36, section 5.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “Criterion” to
“Criteria”.

Page 38, section 6, 3rd paragraph: the MD5 mention here is presumably subsumed
by the 2nd paragraph’s more specific discussion of MD5 and could perhaps be
eliminated in the 3rd paragraph.

Page 40, Appendix A, 3rd item, section 2.2.6 row: change “amd” to “and”.

Page 40, Appendix A, 5th item: change “approriate" to “appropriate”.

Page 41, Appendix B, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: change “Section” to
“Sections”. Also change the bare “Bad” to “bad”.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:48:42 -0500

Hi Peter,

Thank you for your detailed review of this somewhat lengthy draft!

Sorry for my slow response, I've been on vacation at www.discon3.org.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 6:24 PM Peter Yee via Datatracker
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> in funding), I suspect that the old US National Bureau of Standards still wants

OK :-)

> Page 19, section 2.3.12, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence: change “choosen” to

OK on above.

> to other section separators. What can I say?

Sharp eyes! The idea was to have an extra blank line before each 2nd
level header in Section 2 to improve readability. The improvement may
be almost insignificant but I am inclined to leave in the extra blank
lines and have, in fact, added a couple more blank lines so as to
consistently implement my idea of such extra blank lines.

> Page 27, section 3: append a comma after “below”. Append a comma after “3.2”.

OK on the above.

> Perhaps the text could also be omitted as repetitious?

Assuming you are talking about the last sentence, just before the 4.2
header, this is a pretty darn long table. The column headers are
repeated as column footers due to the height of that span and I think
it is reasonable to leave in this sentence just past the end of the
table.

> Perhaps this one can be deleted?

See answer immediately above.

> “Sections”. Also change the bare “Bad” to “bad”.

OK on above.

Thanks again,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
 [email-masked]