RE: Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-dcsp-00.txt

[Robert Zuccherato <robert.zuccherato@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul;

Again, thanks for the comments.  As with your timestamp comments, I have no
problem with any of them.

	Robert.

> ----------
> From: 	Paul Hoffman / IMC[SMTP:phoffman@imc.org]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, December 15, 1998 2:26 PM
> To: 	ietf-pkix@imc.org
> Subject: 	Comments on draft-ietf-pkix-dcsp-00.txt
> 
> Similar comments to the timestamp draft.
> 
> 1) In 5, the first long paragraph should be broken up into a bulleted list
> so it is clear what is being described.
> 
> 2) In 5, I think the DCSReqInfo ASN.1 is wrong. I believe that all of the
> optional items should be tagged. With your current definition, if the
> requestor and reqPolicy are omitted, the receiver doesn't know if the next
> GeneralName is the requestor or the dcs.
> 
> 3) In 5, the structure for Message uses newer ASN.1 constructs. Can this
> be
> restated in ASN.1 '88 for the folks who only have '88 compilers?
> 
> 4) In 6.2, I do not like using port 309 for this. In the IANA registry,
> that port is listed as:
> entrusttime     309/tcp    EntrustTime    
> entrusttime     309/udp    EntrustTime    
> #                          Peter Whittaker <pww@entrust.com>
> That is inappropriate for a standards-track document. I think you should
> change the port registration.
> 
> Further, this is the same port you are using for timestamping, yet we are
> claiming that they are two different services. Shouldn't they be on
> different ports?
> 
> 5) In 6.3, "application/dcs" is not registered with IANA. I believe you
> should add the registration request in the draft.
> 
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --Internet Mail Consortium
>