Subject: [stir] Kathleen Moriarty's Yes on draft-ietf-stir-certificates-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 13:45:49 -0800

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-certificates-16: Yes

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-stir-certificates/

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

Thanks for your work on this draft!

NIT: Section 4, bullet 4, RFC8017 is PKCS #1 v2.2, not v1.5.
There are some other mentions of v1.5, did you mean that or 2.2?  2.2 fixes a
few problems, so I was glad to see that reference.

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:12:11 -0500

> On Dec 13, 2017, at 16:45, Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

We do point to the 2.2 specification, but we’re still using the RSASSA-PKCS1-v1_5 scheme.  Basically, we’re still using the 1.5 scheme though it’s documented in the 2.2 spec ;)

spt