Subject: [COSE] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:43:11 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-algs/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work on this document. To be honest, I had only time to
quickly browse through: I am trusting the security AD for the security
considerations.

Not really important but I wonder why the security considerations are spread
through all the document (sections 3.1.1, 3.2.1, ...). It obviously makes the
text clearer and easier to read but may I suggest to rename those sections in
something more specific (to avoid the comparaison with the well-know security
considerations section of all I-D -- that is Section 11 in this document) :
e.g., "Section 4.2.1 Security Considerations of AES CCM". I noted that this is
used in "6.2.1.  Security Considerations for AES-KW" already, just be
consistent ;-)

Hope this helps

-éric