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

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 16:03:19 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-samples-07: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Thanks for producing these; they should be really useful for future
development and testing.

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...

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.