Subject: [lamps] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-5480-ku-clarifications-00: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:56:20 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-5480-ku-clarifications-00: 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-lamps-5480-ku-clarifications/

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

Thanks for a nice, super-short and to-the-point document.  I hate to pick on
anything here, but:

   then the following
   values also MUST NOT be present:

Do you mean "MUST NOT also be present"?  The "also" seems misplaced where it
is, and it made me wonder if I misunderstood.  An alternative fix would be to
simply remove "also".

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 21:10:49 -0500

> On Feb 25, 2020, at 17:56, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> simply remove "also”.

In my mind it was an “also” because the text is basically saying in addition to the list already in RFC 5480 (text below) do not also set these two bits.

  If the keyUsage extension is present in a certificate that indicates
  id-ecDH or id-ecMQV in SubjectPublicKeyInfo, then the following
  values MUST NOT be present:

    digitalSignature;
    nonRepudiation;
    keyTransport;
    keyCertSign; and
    cRLSign.

With that said, I would be happy to remove it or move it - You tell me which you’d prefer ;)

spt

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:36:53 -0800

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:38:03 -0800

(Sorry for the previous content-free message.)

My comment is, of course, non-blocking, and I don't care which way you
handle it, really.  If you think the current phrasing is good, then
tally-ho.

b