Subject: Re: [lamps] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-samples-05

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:11:56 +0200

Hi Stewart--

Thanks for this review.

On Tue 2021-11-16 06:55:33 -0800, Stewart Bryant via Datatracker wrote:
> Document: draft-ietf-lamps-samples-05
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2021-11-16
> IETF LC End Date: 2021-11-26
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: A well written document ready for publication
>
> Major issues:None
>
> Minor issues:None
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> The following terms were used without prior definition in the text: PEM, OCSP,
> CRL - they are well known in the security community, but not in the RFC Editor
> list of well known terms not needing expansion on first use.

I appreciate your catching these unexpanded acronyms.  I am happy to add
expansions for them, or maybe just outbound references if that seems
appropriate.

"OCSP" and "CRL" appear in the draft in reference to certificate
indicators, meaning specific X.509 extensions; for OCSP i would refer to
id-ad-ocsp in the Authority Information Access X.509 extension
(i.e., §4.2.2.1 of RFC 5280), and for CRL i would refer to the CRL
Distribution Points X.509 extension (i.e., §4.2.1.13 of RFC 5280).

For "PEM encoding" I would add an informative reference to RFC 7468,
where §5 describes certificates and §10 describes private keys.

Would that be a useful set of changes to the document?

Regards,

      --dkg

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 19:48:17 -0800

Hi dkg,

> Would that be a useful set of changes to the document?

IMHO, yes.

Thanks,

Ben

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 00:55:54 +0200

>> Would that be a useful set of changes to the document?

OK, i just uploaded draft-ietf-lamps-samples-06 with these changes and
Roman's edits, but i somehow goofed and modified the PKCS#12 files from
how they were in -05.

I've subsequently uploaded -07 with the PKCS#12 restored to how it was
in -05, as you can see here:

https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-lamps-samples-05&url2=draft-ietf-lamps-samples-07

I note that there is also a change in how the text versions are
rendered, because the surrounding quotation marks have been dropped as
of xml2rfc version 3.7 (see
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/xml2rfc/ticket/600) -- the underlying xml
source has no changes for those elements.  I'd have preferred the text
version to actually do the quote-wrapping of the substrings, but not
enough to introduce quotation marks into the HTML version, which i think
is a cleaner way to read these samples anyway (easier to extract the
sourcecode blobs, at any rate).

So, I think this addresses all of the outstanding requests that i've
seen about this draft.  If there's anything else i can do to help move
this along, please let me know.

        --dkg