Hi,




 




I have reviewed draft-seantek-ldap-pkcs9-06.txt as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational
 aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.




 




This I-D adds IANA considerations relevant to RFC 2985 which is the Informational RFC version of the Public Key Cryptography Standards #9, a product of RSA Laboratories. Basically it creates an LDAP OID which makes possible registration
 of a relevant subset of attributes, their descriptors and syntax that can be stored in an LDAP directory.





 




An RFC 5706 review does not apply. I have not detected any immediate operational impact, and the definition of the registers under IANA can only better structure the management tasks.





 




I believe the document is 'Ready' for publication from the OPS-DIR perspective.




 




The following comments are not related directly to the operational aspects, but can improve the quality of the document and its readability and usability by IT personal and network operators:





 




-

         


It would help to expand PKCS and include one paragraph that describes where it comes from and how it is used – this may be very trivial for security experts but not to all operators or other users of the future
 RFC




-

         


The following sentence in section 4 is cumbersome because of the double negation, I suggest to reformulate it: ‘

The attributes in Appendix B.3 that are


not highly unlikely to be stored in a Directory are registered via this document.

’




-

         


Section 4.1 includes the phrase: ‘Since all specifications are under the change control of the IETF, …’ – actually the abstract of RFC 2985 makes clear that ‘change control is retained within the PKCS process’
 (which as I understand belongs to the RSC Laboratories. If things have changed since the publication of RFC 2985 (November 2000) it would be useful to document this  




 




Regards,




 




Dan