Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-12

From: Scott Bradner via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 06:40:26 -0700

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Has Nits

it is my understanding that the style guide says that there should be no
references in the abstract – so “This document updates [RFC3370] and ...” is
not permitted – I would suggest that it should read “This document updates
“Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms” (RFC 3370) and ...”.

Then change the second sentence in the introduction to read: “Cryptographic
Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms  [RFC3370] describes the use of common
cryptographic algorithms with the CMS. This specification updates [RFC3370] to
describe the use of the SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 specified in [SHA3] as new hash
functions in CMS.”

Otherwise the specification does not present any operational issues and looks
ready for publication

---

From: "Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 15:02:10 +0000

Hi Scott,

Thanks for the review. 

Hmm, I added this reference after Adam Roach's review that pointed out https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/checklist/ §3.1.D.1. But you are right, we don't need to make a normative reference in the abstract. 

The abstract now reads 

   This document updates the "Cryptographic Message Syntax Algorithms"
   (RFC3370) and describes the conventions for using the SHAKE family of
   hash functions with the Cryptographic Message Syntax [...]

And the Introduction 

   The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) [RFC5652] is used to digitally
   sign, digest, authenticate, or encrypt arbitrary message contents.
   Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms [RFC3370] defines the
   use of common cryptographic algorithms with CMS.  This specification
   updates RFC3370 and describes the use of the SHAKE128 [...]

I think it should better now. I will upload the next iteration on Monday. 

Rgs,
Panos 

-----Original Message-----
From: Spasm <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Scott Bradner via Datatracker
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 9:40 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [lamps] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-12

Reviewer: Scott Bradner
Review result: Has Nits

it is my understanding that the style guide says that there should be no references in the abstract – so “This document updates [RFC3370] and ...” is not permitted – I would suggest that it should read “This document updates “Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms” (RFC 3370) and ...”.

Then change the second sentence in the introduction to read: “Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms  [RFC3370] describes the use of common cryptographic algorithms with the CMS. This specification updates [RFC3370] to describe the use of the SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 specified in [SHA3] as new hash functions in CMS.”

Otherwise the specification does not present any operational issues and looks ready for publication

_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm