Jim:
Here are some review comments as part of doing the Shepard Write-up.
1. The ASN1-97 reference should be updated to the latest version. I
currently have these as 11/2008.
Isn't that ASN1-08?
I chose to reference the two incompatible versions of the syntax.
2. The root of the arc should be
id-smime OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) member-body(2)
us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs9(9) smime(16) }
(addition of a name for the last number in the list)
Doing this would define two labels, smime and id-smime.
3. In section 3.2, I am not sure that I understand what the description
field is supposed to indicate. I expect this to be a descriptive field, and
thus not need the hyphens. I would also expect that the table should
probably include the tag that is used for the field when it exists in an
ASN.1 file. Thus it would be
0 Module Identifiers mod [This RFC]
I'm fine with removing the hyphens. I do not see the value in the "mod"
column. It is just a convention that I used to help me manage the OID registry.
4. There is a naming philoshpy change that occurred part of the way through
our use of the arc This means that the string id-mod-domsec does not appear
in RFC 3274, instead it simply uses domsec for the assigned name of the arc.
Should this document be using the same names as are in the actual ASN.1
modules or should we be using the new strings that do not appear in the
modules.
There was no change in the convention. Some RFCs use a module name other than
the object identifier. I do not see that as a problem.
5. Should we publish the current ASN.1 module as an informational appendix?
Subsequent additions to the registry would make the module incomplete. So, the
value would be fleeting.
Russ
_______________________________________________
smime mailing list
smime(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/smime