Subject: Re: draft-ietf-openpgp-rfc2440bis-19.txt

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:08:33 -0500

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:21:17PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote:
> 
> I've submitted bis19. This should be within epsilon of complete for a  
> whole lot of epsilons. It has in it text to address the IESG  
> concerns, as well as the IANA considerations in a brand new section  
> 10. The *only* thing that there should be comments on is the IANA  
> considerations.

This looks really good.  I have a few minor comments about the
additions.  This might look like a lot, but I think there was a cut
and paste error that explains some of them.

*********************
In section 5.13, in the non-normative explanation of MDC:

The sentence "(Note also that CBC mode has similar limitation, but
data removed from the front of the block is undetectable.)" needs an
"a" between "has" and "similar".

The sentence "Suffice it to say that many people consider properties
such as deniability are considered to be as valuable as integrity."
is a little tangled, language wise.  I suggest removing the words "are
considered".

"OpenPGP addresses this desire to have more security than raw
encryption, and yet preserving deniability with the MDC system." is
also a bit tangled.  I suggest changing "preserving" to "preserve" and
adding a comma after "deniability".

*********************

Section 10.2.2.1 (Signature Notation Data Subpackets) says "Adding a
new signature Signature Notation Data ..."  The first "signature"
should be removed.

*********************

Section 10.2.2.2 (Key Server Preference Extensions) says "OpenPGP
signatures contain a mechanism for preferences to be specified about
key server preferences."  That's one "preferences" too many.

*********************

Section 10.2.2.3 is titled "Key Flags Preference Extensions".  I
suggest removing the word "Preference" as key flags aren't really
preferences, and the rest of that section (correctly, I'd say) doesn't
call them preferences either.

*********************

Section 10.2.2.4 (Reason For Revocation Extensions) seems to have a
few cut and paste problems and is co-mingled with the section after
it.

It refers to "the feature flags value".  This should be "the
reason-for-revocation flags value".

In the same section it says "Adding a new feature flag...".  That
should be "Adding a new reason-for-revocation flag..."

The reference to section 5.2.3.24 should be 5.2.3.23.

Finally, the sentence "Also see section 10.6 for more information
about when feature flags are needed." actually belongs to section
10.2.2.5 (Implementation Features).

*********************

Section 10.2.2.5. (Implementation Features) has a mirror image of the
problems with 10.2.2.4.

It refers to "the reason flags value".  That should probably be "the
feature-implementation flags value".

In the same section it says "Adding a new reason for revocation
flag...".  That should be "Adding a new feature-implementation
flag..."

The reference to section 5.2.3.23 in this section should be section
5.2.3.24.

The sentence "Also see section 10.6 for more information about when
feature flags are needed." from section 10.2.2.4 actually belongs
here.

*********************

David

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:07:18 -0800

> and paste error that explains some of them.

Yeah.

They're all fixed. I'm submitting the resulting bis-20.

	Jon