Document:  draft-nystrom-ct-kip-01.txt
Reviewer: Gray, Eric [Eric.Gray@marconi.com]
Review Date:  Wednesday 7/5/2006 4:30 PM CST
IESG Telechat Date:  Thursday, 6 July 2006

Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an 
Informational RFC.

I have some questions/comments and a few very minor 
NITs.

Comments:
========

General Comment:
---------------

The abstract claims this is almost entirely a literal 
republication of a document produced by the OTPS service 
of RSA Laboratories - who intends to retain change control. 
The abstract specifically excludes the Intellectual Propety, 
and IANA, Considerations sections.

I'm not sure what that means with respect to handling of
comments relative to the "republished" material.

Also, it's a minor point but, unless the previous document 
was also an RFC (I saw no indication that this was true), 
there are quite a few other portions of the current draft 
that probably did not exist in the original document (RFC 
boiler-plate, reference sections and author information,
for example).

Perhaps this is implied by the phrase "body of this ..." 

I read through the document.  It appears to be well thought
out and written, and I did not see anything that is ambiguous 
or obviously unclear - although (not being an expert in this 
area) some sections just eluded comprehension for me.

Specific Comments/Questions:
---------------------------

In section 3.7.1 - you say:

"The XML format for CT-KIP messages have been designed to be
 extensible.  However, it is possible that the use of extensions will
 harm interoperability and therefore any use of extensions should be
 carefully considered."

Can we say anything about what "harm interoperability" or "carefully 
considered" means?  What are the risks?  How can they be avoided?
Is there a reference you can point to that talks about the issues?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 3.8.6 (CT-KIP server's second PDU), on pages 27 and 28,
I am having trouble matching message fields (shown on page 27) with
descriptions (given on pages 27 and 28).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

NITs:
----

In section 5.2.1, the last sentence would be better worded as:

"Sections 5.2.2 through 5.2.7 analyze these attack scenarios."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 6 (IANA Considerations), you say:

"None at this point; the MIME type is already registered."

The document mentions several MIME types.  I assume you meant:
"application/vnd.otps.ct-kip+xml" in this case (as opposed to
- for instance - "image/jpeg" or "image/gif").

I would change the section to read either -

"None at this point; the MIME type (section 4.2.2) is already
 registered."

OR

"IANA has no action with respect to this document."