--- 1/draft-ietf-lamps-cms-update-alg-id-protect-04.txt	2020-08-27 08:13:24.940181727 -0700
+++ 2/draft-ietf-lamps-cms-update-alg-id-protect-05.txt	2020-08-27 08:13:24.960182237 -0700
@@ -1,20 +1,20 @@
 
 Network Working Group                                         R. Housley
 Internet-Draft                                            Vigil Security
 Updates: 5652 (if approved)                              August 27, 2020
 Intended status: Standards Track
 Expires: February 28, 2021
 
      Update to the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) for Algorithm
                          Identifier Protection
-             draft-ietf-lamps-cms-update-alg-id-protect-04
+             draft-ietf-lamps-cms-update-alg-id-protect-05
 
 Abstract
 
    This document updates the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
    specified in RFC 5652 to ensure that algorithm identifiers in signed-
    data and authenticated-data content types are adequately protected.
 
 Status of This Memo
 
    This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
@@ -50,29 +50,29 @@
 Table of Contents
 
    1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
    2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
    3.  Required use the same hash algorithm  . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
      3.1.  RFC 5652, Section 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
      3.2.  RFC 5652, Section 5.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
      3.3.  RFC 5652, Section 5.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
      3.4.  Backward Compatibility Considerations . . . . . . . . . .   5
      3.5.  Timestamp Compatibility Considerations  . . . . . . . . .   5
-   4.  Recommended inclusion of the CMSAlgorithmProtection attribute   6
+   4.  Recommended inclusion of the CMSAlgorithmProtection attribute   5
      4.1.  RFC 5652, Section 14  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
    7.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
    8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
      8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
      8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
-   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
+   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
 
 1.  Introduction
 
    This document updates the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
    [RFC5652] to ensure that algorithm identifiers in signed-data and
    authenticated-data content types are adequately protected.
 
    The CMS signed-data Content Type [RFC5652], unlike X.509 certificates
    [RFC5280], can be vulnerable to algorithm substitution attacks.  In
    an algorithm substitution attack, the attacker changes either the
@@ -170,24 +170,20 @@
    Add the following paragraph as the second paragraph in Section 5.4:
 
    ADD:
 
       When the signedAttrs field is present, the same digest algorithm
       MUST be used to compute the digest of the encapContentInfo
       eContent OCTET STRING, which is carried in the message-digest
       attribute, and the digest of the collection of attributes that are
       signed.
 
-   nit: there may be a grammar nit here, relating to the parallelism of
-   "compute the digest of" - I think "the collection of attributes that
-   are signed" should also have an "of" or "digest of" prefix.
-
 3.3.  RFC 5652, Section 5.6
 
    Change the paragraph discussing the signed attributes as follows:
 
    OLD:
 
       The recipient MUST NOT rely on any message digest values computed
       by the originator.  If the SignedData signerInfo includes
       signedAttributes, then the content message digest MUST be
       calculated as described in Section 5.4.  For the signature to be