RE: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05

Hi,
This was my question, if you registered the OIDs then it is OK.


Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Turner [mailto:turners(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 11:19 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'General Area Review Team'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-turner-
asymmetrickeyformat(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-turner-
asymmetrickeyformat-05

Roni Even wrote:

Hi,
I will provide an example
This draft defines

   AsymmetricKeyPackageModuleV1
     { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549) pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9)
       smime(16) modules(0) id-mod-asymmetricKeyPkgV1(50) }

RFC 5652 defines

CryptographicMessageSyntax2004
     { iso(1) member-body(2) us(840) rsadsi(113549)
       pkcs(1) pkcs-9(9) smime(16) modules(0) cms-2004(24) }

In this case the id-mod-asymmetricKeyPkgV1(50) is not the same as
cms-2004(24) so they are different but how do you know that 50 is not

used

by other draft.

Look at Alfred H־nes email. I think that updating the specific

registries is

important. I know that they are not maintained by IANA but hopefully

someone

is maintain them and need to be notified of these two OIDs

allocations.

Ah, I got both OIDs by asking for them.  I only put them in the
document
after I had them registered to ensure we wouldn't have collisions.  The
earlier versions of the ID had "tbd" as place holders until I
officially
got them registered.

spt

Thanks
Roni Even

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Turner [mailto:turners(_at_)ieca(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 8:37 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 'General Area Review Team'; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; draft-turner-
asymmetrickeyformat(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART Telechat review of draft-turner-
asymmetrickeyformat-05

Roni,

Thanks for your review.  Comments inline.

spt

Roni Even wrote:

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)

reviewer for

this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before

posting a

new version of the draft.

Document: draft-turner-asymmetrickeyformat-05

Reviewer: Roni Even

Review Date: 2010-4-18

IESG Telechat date: 2010-4-22

Summary: This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed

Standard.

I have

some nits

Nits/editorial comments:

1.        In section 7 what you are registering is a media subtype

and not

media type. The media type is application. So "defines a new media

type"

should be "defines a new media subtype" and "Registration of media

type"

should be "Registration of media subtype".

I'll add this in.

2.        The document defines new object identifiers like
id-ct-KP-aKeyPackage and AsymmetricKeyPackageModuleV1.  Where is

the

list of

these identifiers kept and how do you update this list in order to

guarantee

the uniqueness of these identifiers.

I got the OIDs for the content types and asn.1 module out of two

arcs.

Both OIDs are unique.  Technically, we'd never update an OID.  Once
it's
registered it's registered.  If we need a new OID, then we don't
necessarily have to go back to the same arc - but I'm sure we could.
The module OID I got from the SMIME Arc, which is administered by

Russ

Housley and it's been delegated from IANA to SMIME.  The other I got
out
of a DoD arc.   I should add the following the IANA considerations
sections to make this clear:

This document makes use of object identifiers to identify a CMS

content

and the ASN.1 module found in Appendix A.  The CMS content type OID

is

registered in a DoD arc.  The ASN.1 module OID is registered in an

arc

delegated by IANA to the SMIME Working Group.  No further action by
IANA
is necessary for this document or any anticipated updates.


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf