Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-12
review-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-12-opsdir-lc-bradner-2019-07-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 18)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-07-03
Requested 2019-06-19
Authors Panos Kampanakis, Quynh Dang
Draft last updated 2019-07-11
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -11 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Daniel Migault (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -11 by Watson Ladd (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -12 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott Bradner
State Completed
Review review-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-12-opsdir-lc-bradner-2019-07-11
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/lNJ1zD-r47Q0e8xq_k1QggMW3kg
Reviewed rev. 12 (document currently at 18)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-07-11

Review
review-ietf-lamps-cms-shakes-12-opsdir-lc-bradner-2019-07-11

it is my understanding that the style guide says that there should be no references in the abstract – so “This document updates [RFC3370] and ...” is not permitted – I would suggest that it should read “This document updates “Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms” (RFC 3370) and ...”.   

Then change the second sentence in the introduction to read: “Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Algorithms  [RFC3370] describes the use of common cryptographic algorithms with the CMS. This specification updates [RFC3370] to describe the use of the SHAKE128 and SHAKE256 specified in [SHA3] as new hash functions in CMS.”

Otherwise the specification does not present any operational issues and looks ready for publication