[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-melnikov-smime-msa-to-mda-03

"Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com> Tue, 25 February 2014 15:56 UTC

Message-ID: <530CBD74.1010201@bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:57:40 -0600
From: "Vijay K. Gurbani" <vkg@bell-labs.com>
Organization: Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-melnikov-smime-msa-to-mda@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/fnWFnzJI8weoLqbOpvLIkmBsfF4
Cc: General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-melnikov-smime-msa-to-mda-03
Precedence: list

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-melnikov-smime-msa-to-mda-03
Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
Review Date: Feb-25-2014
IETF LC End Date: Mar-05-2014
IESG Telechat date: Unknown

I must say that this draft was written with implementors in mind.
This is very refreshing.

Major: 0
Minor: 0
Nits:  4

This document is ready as a Proposed Standard.  Some minor nits follow:

Nits:

- S2.2, "Organizational policy and good security practice often
  require that messages be reviewed before they are released to
  external recipients."  Here, I suspect that organizational policy may
  require such a vetting but I would think that "good security practice"
  would not.  After all, unless a party is forced to do so (the
  "organizational policy" part), why would one party willingly subject
  its private communications to a third party before sending it
  to the recipient?  I would not consider that a third party reading
  my messages a "good security practice".  Therefore, I would take
  the "good security practice" phrase out, unless of course, there is
  some context to that phrase that I am not privy to.

- S3.3, first sentence: "A 'domain signature' is a signature generated
  on behalf of a set of users in the domain the users are a member of."
  This sentence appears rather, for the lack of a better word, clunky.
  How about rewriting this as: "A 'domain signature' is a signature
  generated on behalf of a set of users who belong to the specific
  domain."

- S5, steps 3-A and 3-B: s/found then/found, then/
  There are some more occurences of this, if you feel like it, you may
  want to change these to have a comma as well.

- S7, first paragraph: s/permits masquerade./permits masquerading./
   or, s/permits masquerade attacks./

Thanks,

- vijay
-- 
Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Alcatel-Lucent
1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA)
Email: vkg@{bell-labs.com,acm.org} / vijay.gurbani@alcatel-lucent.com
Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/  | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq

[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-melnikov-smime-… Vijay K. Gurbani
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-melnikov-sm… Alexey Melnikov
Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-melnikov-sm… Vijay K. Gurbani