I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document:  draft-ietf-lamps-documentsigning-eku-04
Reviewer:  Dale R. Worley
Review Date:  2022-08-07
IETF LC End Date:  2022-08-11
IESG Telechat date:  (none)

Summary:

    This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that
    should be fixed before publication.

The technical content of the draft is quite good, but there is an
editorially critical issue regarding the allocation of the
identifiers.  There are three places where "to be done" identifiers
are specified:

3.1.  Including the Extended Key Purpose for Document Signing in

     id-kp-documentSigning  OBJECT IDENTIFIER  ::=  { id-kp XX }

8.2.  Informative References

Appendix A.  ASN.1 Module
     DocSignEKU { iso(1) identified-organization(3) dod(6) internet(1)
       security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) id-mod(0)
       id-mod-docsign-eku(TBD1) }

     id-kp-documentSigning OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp TBD2 }

However, section 7 "IANA Considerations" does not explicitly mention
any of these substitutions.  Compare with
e.g. draft-ietf-curdle-cms-chacha20-poly10305.  Section 7 does say
that assignments need to be made to the appropriate registries but
provides no reference or "Note to the Editor" what substitutions need
to be made in the text.  Also, "XX" must be the same as "TBD2", but
that is not specified.

There is also a redundant specification at the end of section 7,

   No further action is necessary by IANA.

Given that the previous sentences in the paragraph state that there
are two actions and then enumerate them, adding a statement that there
are no others is redundant.

[END]