Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-01 (fwd)

From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:34:45 -0700 (PDT)

So, this didn't make it to 
[email-masked] so I'm 
sending it again to all of the proper recipients.  Please respond to this 
message.
Apologies.
Regards,
Chris

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Lonvick <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked],
     [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of
     draft-turner-encryptedkeypackagecontenttype-01

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing 
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments 
were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. 
Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other 
last call comments.

Overall, I do not see any particular security concerns.  The document appears 
to be in good shape and ready for publication.

Not finding anything of particular importance to note about the concepts, I 
started looking at the nits.

Section 1 - The following is an awkward sentence:
     The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) specification [RFC5652]
     defines means to...
Perhaps:
     The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) specification [RFC5652]
     defines mechanisms to...
(Means means so many different things.)

Section 1 also says:
     This document also defines an unprotected attribute for use with one
     of the key management options supported by the encrypted key package
     content type.
Not being a crypto geek, I'm left guessing which this is.  It's not 
specifically called out in the document, and the implications of using it are 
not called out in the Security Considerations section.

Why are you asking the RFC Editor to remove the IANA Considerstions section? 
Maybe I missed it, but I havn't seen any discussion about not having an IANA 
Considerations section if you don't have anything for the IANA to do.  I can 
see Informational and Experimental RFCs not having anything, but IMHO a 
Standards Track document should have an IANA Considerations ection even if it 
is just to say that nothing needs to be done.

Regards,
Chris
_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir