Re: Review of draft-ietf-krb-wg-pkinit-alg-agility-06

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the review.  All of your comments look reasonable, and I will publish and updated document to address these issues as soon as possible.

Margaret

On Mar 9, 2012, at 9:53 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> Below is my review of the PKINIT hash agility document.  I found no
> technical issues with this document, but there are a few issues that
> need to be resolved.  As always, I'd prefer to get responses to
> everything, but the first five items are blockers and must be resolved
> before the document can progress.  In the case of point 3, only the
> first part (verifying assignments in non-IANA registries) is blocking;
> I'll leave it to the authors to use their judgment in determining
> whether any changes need to be made to the document.
> 
> I need someone to validate the ASN.1 module in Appendix A.
> 
> I would also like to hear from anyone who has implemented this
> specification or is planning to do so, and particularly from anyone who
> was able to verify the test vectors in section 7.
> 
> -- Jeff
> 
> 
> 1) This document updates RFC4556; it needs a header to that effect.
> 
> 2) The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
>   first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the disclaimer?
>   (See the Legal Provisions document at http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info
>   for more information.)
> 
> 3) This document assigns the following values, drawn from registries
>   not yet managed by IANA.  Please confirm that these values have
>   actually been assigned and are correct:
> 
>   - id-pkinit-kdc OID arc (id-pkinit 6)
>   - Error type KDC_ERR_NO_ACCEPTABLE_KDF (82)
> 
>   It may be desirable to include a "Number Assignments" section describing
>   these assignments, as was done in referrals.
> 
>   Also, this document uses some values which were previously reserved
>   for it in an IANA-managed registry.  It may be useful to include an
>   IANA considerations section indicating this, so IANA knows to update
>   the registry to refer to the published RFC.
> 
> 4) The following acronyms must be expanded on first use:
>   - KDC (section 1, last graf)
>   - CA (section 5, graf 1)
> 
> 5) The following references are obsolete:
>  - RFC 1320 (Obsoleted by RFC 6150)
>  - RFC 3280 (Obsoleted by RFC 5280)
>  - RFC 3852 (Obsoleted by RFC 5652)
>  - RFC 4634 (Obsoleted by RFC 6234)
> 
> 6) Are RFC3766 and RFC6194 really normative references for this document?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-krb-wg mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg