[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-rfc3369bis-01.txt

2004-03-24 15:35:00


Thanks for the continuing quality review.

1. Section 5.1, para version:  Grammer issue  s/certificates is
present/certificates are present/

I consider this to be short for: if the certificates field is present, then ...

Since the name of the field is plural, it does lead to an awkward read, but I think it is okay.

2.  Section 5.1, para version: Correct  to the beginning of the if clauses
should be
        IF (any certificates with a type of other are present) OR
         (any crls with a type of other are present)
      THEN version MUST be 5.

        The other two clauses add nothing to the text.

This is the way we did it in the past:

   IF (certificates is present) AND
      (any version 2 attribute certificates are present)
   THEN version MUST be 4

We say: if the field is present and that field contains the new thing, then ....

3.  Section 5.3:  Consider the following text.

      When generating a SignerIdentifier,
      implementations MAY support one of the forms (either
      issuerAndSerialNumber or subjectKeyIdentifier) and always use it,
      or implementations MAY arbitrarily mix the two forms.

        I think that it might need to be updated for dealing with OTHER, but
I don't know what to really say about that.

I added: "However, subjectKeyIdentifier MUST be used to refer to a public key contained in a non-X.509 certificate."

Does that address your concern?

4.  Section 6.2.1, para 'rid': s/signer's/recipient's/

Good catch.  It will be fixed in version -02.

5.  Section 6.2.2, para 'originator':  s/thereby the sender's public key,
a/thereby the sender's public key, by a/

Good catch.  It will be fixed in version -02.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>