CMC Comments

[Nada Kapidzic Cicovic <nada@xxxxxxx>]

A couple of comments on CMC:

- Section 2 - abstract identifies ietf-pkix-request@tandem.com as the
address of PKIX mailing list. This is no longer true and a link to
ietf-pkix-request@imc.org should be stated instead.

- Section 3 - protocol overview states that "CMMF message bodies secured by
CMS are encapsulated either as PKIData content type or Data content type."
However, subsequent sections talk only about PKIData and do not mention
Data content type and how it is to be used. Is this an error in section 3,
or should the subsequent sections be changed with the intended usage of the
Data content type?

- A couple of typos are present in the same section. Write:
      - "encapsulated" instead of "encapulsated" in the first sentence of
the                                                  section.
      - "Processing system ..." instead of "Processing systems ..." at the
                               beginning of page 1 (shouldn't this be page 2?)
      - "5) Takes action ..." instead of "5) Take action ..."
A general comment would be to run a spell checker on the whole document.

- "CertResponse" should be replaced with "CertRep" (in the section 3.1).

- The first sentence in 3.2 is very confusing: 
"The inner-most content type used encapsulate PKIData (i.e. CRMF or CMMF
message bodies) is either id-pkix-crs or id-data." 
I suppose it should read: 
"The inner-most content type used encapsulate PKIData (i.e. CRMF or CMMF
message bodies) in either id-pkix-crs or id-data." 
Perhaps a rewrite would be the best choice.

- Section 4.4 has two references to other sections which seem to be wrong.
The first reference to section 4.3 seems weird to me, and the second
reference to 5.3 is wrong (there is no section 5.3) and should probably
read 4.3.

- on page 5 it is stated that id-pkix-crs is defined in PKIXCERT. However,
PKIXCERT does not contain the referenced definition.

- id-pkidata does not seem to be defined either.

- In Section 4.5.1 on page 8 legacy value is stated for some message types.
Should they be supported as well? Additional text might help specifying the
actions regarding legacy values. 

- Sections 4.7 - 4.8.7 contain a couple of typos, e.g. a sign ' is replaced
with a sequence M-^R. A couple of other similar errors exist too.

- References chapter should be updated to contain details of all documents
referred to in the draft. I've found the following references missing in
the references section, but existing in the text: CRS, CMMF, EES.


I hope my comments are not coming late. I was not aware that CMMF and CMC
were ready for the last call.


Regards,

Nada