Subject: LAST CALL - Public Key Cryptography for Initial Authentication in Kerberos

From: Love Hörnquist Åstrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:24:47 +0200

In the first read though of the document I found these issues:

* Normative text inside asn.1 comments.
* TD-DH-PARAMETERS unprotected but it doesn't need to be,
  KDC have a certificate, lets use it to avoid downgrade attacks
* DH doesn't protect the request (asChecksum), I think it should,
  there are more options sent in the request more then the PK-INIT
  request.
* Q is not expilictly defined for most D-H groups, Q is a non-OPTIONAL
  field in DomainParameters. How should client and server handle this ?

* I think TD-DH-PARAMETERS is somewhat underspecified, but can't
  really describe how to make it better. Its the content that is
  underspecified.

* Remove . after only. Also this sentintense is ambigious, is empty the
  empty set or the omitted field ?

>       hints to guide its selection of an appropriate certificate chain
>       to return to the client.  This field may only. be left empty if

* General question, are all SEQUENCE OF are allowed to be the empty
  sequence (0 elements) ?

* Should oid names be broken over several lines ?

>   2.  The contentType field for the type EnvelopedData is id-
>       signedData:

* I think it should be pointed out that "signedAttrs" field in
  SignedData might be used.

--- 

The general state of the document have improved much, and after proper
CMS/X.509 review I think its implementable.

Love