Subject: [lamps] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-crmf-update-algs-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2021 08:14:40 -0700

Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-crmf-update-algs-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-crmf-update-algs/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document. I only have one typo and one very
minor comment, feel free to take them or leave them.

Francesca

1. -----

   *  HMAC-SHA1 [HMAC][SHS] is not boken yet, but there are much

FP: s/boken/broken

2. -----

   The algorithm identifier for HMAC-SHA256 is defined in [RFC4231]:

   The algorithm identifier for AES-GMAC [AES][GMAC] with a 128-bit key

FP: suggestion to replace "identifier" with "ASN.1 object identifier"

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:08:45 -0400

>   *  HMAC-SHA1 [HMAC][SHS] is not boken yet, but there are much

Clearly, this will be fixed.  But if this is the only comment, we may wait until AUTH48.

> FP: suggestion to replace "identifier" with "ASN.1 object identifier"

I used "algorithm identifier" to include the parameters as well as the OID.

Russ

---

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:31:23 +0000

Hi Russ,

I see. My point was to add some text about ASN.1 being used (and possibly a reference to it?), as ASN.1 is not even mentioned in the draft right now, but its syntax is used. However, since this is an update to a document which clearly mentions ASN.1, I leave it to you to decide if it would improve the text or not.

Thanks,
Francesca

On 05/04/2021, 18:08, "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Russ

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 12:55:17 -0400

Francesca:

I see. This is an update to the CRMF specification in RFC 4211, which includes an ASN.1 module for the protocol.

For clarity, I will add a sentence to the introduction:

   CRMF is defined using Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1) [X680].

Then, I will use "ASN.1 algorithm identifier" in two places.

Russ

> On Apr 5, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ,
>

---

From: Francesca Palombini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2021 16:59:34 +0000

Exactly what I was hoping for, thank you Russ.

Francesca

On 05/04/2021, 18:55, "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Francesca:

    Russ