Subject: Re: [lamps] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-samples-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:04:40 -0500

On Wed 2022-01-05 16:03:19 -0800, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
> Should we say that the private keys are represented as the RFC 5958/PKCS#8
> structure, and that the RFC 8479 validation parameters attribute is
> included?  At least, I think that's what it looks like...

good idea.  i've added the two of those as normative references and
pointed to them in the text.

> Section 13.1
>
> It's not really clear to me that RFC 5322 needs to be classified as
> normative.
>
> Section 13.2
>
> RFC 7468 seems like it ought to be classified as normative, since it
> specifies the formats we use.

I've also swapped these two references between normative and
informative.

Thanks for the review,

       --dkg