Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-dcsp-00.txt

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 14:26:36 -0500

Similar comments to the timestamp draft.

1) In 5, the first long paragraph should be broken up into a bulleted list
so it is clear what is being described.

2) In 5, I think the DCSReqInfo ASN.1 is wrong. I believe that all of the
optional items should be tagged. With your current definition, if the
requestor and reqPolicy are omitted, the receiver doesn't know if the next
GeneralName is the requestor or the dcs.

3) In 5, the structure for Message uses newer ASN.1 constructs. Can this be
restated in ASN.1 '88 for the folks who only have '88 compilers?

4) In 6.2, I do not like using port 309 for this. In the IANA registry,
that port is listed as:
entrusttime     309/tcp    EntrustTime    
entrusttime     309/udp    EntrustTime    
#                          Peter Whittaker <[email-masked]>
That is inappropriate for a standards-track document. I think you should
change the port registration.

Further, this is the same port you are using for timestamping, yet we are
claiming that they are two different services. Shouldn't they be on
different ports?

5) In 6.3, "application/dcs" is not registered with IANA. I believe you
should add the registration request in the draft.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Robert Zuccherato <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 13:44:07 -0500

Paul;

Again, thanks for the comments.  As with your timestamp comments, I have no
problem with any of them.

	Robert.

> ----------
> From: 	Paul Hoffman / IMC[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, December 15, 1998 2:26 PM
> To: 	[email-masked]
> Subject: 	Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-dcsp-00.txt
>