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 resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
Document: draft-turner-additional-cms-ri-choices-03
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-04-16
IETF LC End Date: 2010-04-19
IESG Telechat date: (if known)
Summary: Very close to ready for publication as a proposed standard. I have a
couple of mainly editorial questions.
Note: This draft contains ASN.1 definitions. I did not attempt to validate them
mechanically.
Major issues: None
Minor issues: None
Nits/editorial comments:
-- Section 1, last sentence: "However, there MAY be more
revocation status information than necessary or there MAY be less
revocation status information than necessary."
Are those really normative statements, or just observations?
-- section 4, last paragraph, and section 5, last paragraph:
You mention the combination of "Unprotected and [/or] authenticated" responses
a few times in these sections. Is that really meant to be "authenticated"
rather than "unauthenticated"?
-- Appendices
Appendix A.1 is described as normative. I have a mild concern about readers
reading far enough to normative material in an appendix. Would it make sense to
have text in the main body that references the appendix as containing normative
material?
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf