Joss-reviews: [REVIEW]: X.509 Compliant Hybrid Certificates for the Post-Quantum Transition

[whedon]

Submitting author: @j-braun (Johannes Braun)
Repository: https://github.com/CROSSINGTUD/bc-hybrid-certificates
Version: 1.0.1
Editor: @danielskatz
Reviewer: @jbasney, @jteheran
Archive: 10.5281/zenodo.3365786

Status

Status badge code:

HTML: <a href="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/04d39dd271866597b0f7f9bcc4434968"><img src="http://joss.theoj.org/papers/04d39dd271866597b0f7f9bcc4434968/status.svg"></a>
Markdown: [![status](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/04d39dd271866597b0f7f9bcc4434968/status.svg)](http://joss.theoj.org/papers/04d39dd271866597b0f7f9bcc4434968)

Reviewers and authors:

Please avoid lengthy details of difficulties in the review thread. Instead, please create a new issue in the target repository and link to those issues (especially acceptance-blockers) by leaving comments in the review thread below. (For completists: if the target issue tracker is also on GitHub, linking the review thread in the issue or vice versa will create corresponding breadcrumb trails in the link target.)

Reviewer instructions & questions

@jbasney & @jteheran, please carry out your review in this issue by updating the checklist below. If you cannot edit the checklist please:

1. Make sure you're logged in to your GitHub account
2. Be sure to accept the invite at this URL: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/invitations

The reviewer guidelines are available here: https://joss.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reviewer_guidelines.html. Any questions/concerns please let @danielskatz know.

✨ Please try and complete your review in the next two weeks ✨

Review checklist for @jbasney

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: 1.0.1
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@j-braun) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

Review checklist for @jteheran

Conflict of interest

• [x] As the reviewer I confirm that I have read the JOSS conflict of interest policy and that there are no conflicts of interest for me to review this work.

Code of Conduct

• [x] I confirm that I read and will adhere to the JOSS code of conduct.

General checks

• [x] Repository: Is the source code for this software available at the repository url?
• [x] License: Does the repository contain a plain-text LICENSE file with the contents of an OSI approved software license?
• [x] Version: 1.0.1
• [x] Authorship: Has the submitting author (@j-braun) made major contributions to the software? Does the full list of paper authors seem appropriate and complete?

Functionality

• [x] Installation: Does installation proceed as outlined in the documentation?
• [x] Functionality: Have the functional claims of the software been confirmed?
• [x] Performance: If there are any performance claims of the software, have they been confirmed? (If there are no claims, please check off this item.)

Documentation

• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] Installation instructions: Is there a clearly-stated list of dependencies? Ideally these should be handled with an automated package management solution.
• [x] Example usage: Do the authors include examples of how to use the software (ideally to solve real-world analysis problems).
• [x] Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level (e.g., API method documentation)?
• [x] Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified?
• [x] Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to 1) Contribute to the software 2) Report issues or problems with the software 3) Seek support

Software paper

• [x] Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations?
• [x] A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is?
• [x] References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one (e.g., papers, datasets, software)?

[whedon]

Hello human, I'm @whedon, a robot that can help you with some common editorial tasks. @jbasney, @jteheran it looks like you're currently assigned to review this paper :tada:.

:star: Important :star:

If you haven't already, you should seriously consider unsubscribing from GitHub notifications for this (https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews) repository. As a reviewer, you're probably currently watching this repository which means for GitHub's default behaviour you will receive notifications (emails) for all reviews 😿

To fix this do the following two things:

1. Set yourself as 'Not watching' https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews:

1. You may also like to change your default settings for this watching repositories in your GitHub profile here: https://github.com/settings/notifications

For a list of things I can do to help you, just type:

@whedon commands

For example, to regenerate the paper pdf after making changes in the paper's md or bib files, type:

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[danielskatz]

👋 @jbasney, @jteheran - Here's where we do the review - please read the comments in this issue for instructions, but basically, your job is to either check off your items in the first comment or explain why you can't - either briefly here, or by opening issues in the source repo and mentioning this issue in them to create a link from here to there.

Thanks for being willing to do this, and if you have any questions, please ask me

[danielskatz]

👋 @j-braun - note that there are a couple of issues waiting for your response

[j-braun]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[j-braun]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[j-braun]

@danielskatz - we took care of the issues and fixed them

[danielskatz]

👋 @jbasney, @jteheran - please check and see what else needs to be done, if anything

[jbasney]

looks good to me

[jteheran]

looks good to me too

[danielskatz]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[danielskatz]

@whedon check references

[whedon]

Attempting to check references...

[whedon]

```Reference check summary:

OK DOIs

• 10.1007/978-3-319-59879-6_22 is OK
• 10.5281/zenodo.3364471 is OK
• 10.1109/SFCS.1994.365700 is OK

MISSING DOIs

• None

INVALID DOIs

• None
  ```

[danielskatz]

@j-braun - please merge https://github.com/CROSSINGTUD/bc-hybrid-certificates/pull/4 or let me know any changes you don't agree with.

[danielskatz]

After that, please make a Zenodo archive of the software, and report the DOI here. If the version number has changed, please report that here as well.

[j-braun]

@whedon generate pdf

[whedon]

Attempting PDF compilation. Reticulating splines etc...

[whedon]

:point_right: Check article proof :page_facing_up: :point_left:

[j-braun]

@danielskatz I agreed to your changes, and only fixed one last typo.
Version is now v1.0.1
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3365225

@danielskatz, @jbasney, @jteheran - thank you very much for your quick review and support

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 1.0.1 as version

[whedon]

OK. 1.0.1 is the version.

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3365225 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3365225 is the archive.

[danielskatz]

@j-braun - Can you change the title of the zenodo archive to match the paper title?

[j-braun]

@danielskatz - Updating the title in Zenodo was not possible. Instead Icreated a new release matching the paper title. This triggered a new archive, but also created a new DOI.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3365786
hope this is ok.

[danielskatz]

@whedon set 10.5281/zenodo.3365786 as archive

[whedon]

OK. 10.5281/zenodo.3365786 is the archive.

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept

[whedon]

Attempting dry run of processing paper acceptance...

[whedon]

Check final proof :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/893

If the paper PDF and Crossref deposit XML look good in https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/893, then you can now move forward with accepting the submission by compiling again with the flag deposit=true e.g.
@whedon accept deposit=true

[danielskatz]

@whedon accept deposit=true

[whedon]

Doing it live! Attempting automated processing of paper acceptance...

[whedon]

🐦🐦🐦 👉 Tweet for this paper 👈 🐦🐦🐦

[whedon]

🚨🚨🚨 THIS IS NOT A DRILL, YOU HAVE JUST ACCEPTED A PAPER INTO JOSS! 🚨🚨🚨

Here's what you must now do:

1. Check final PDF and Crossref metadata that was deposited :point_right: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-papers/pull/894
2. Wait a couple of minutes to verify that the paper DOI resolves https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01606
3. If everything looks good, then close this review issue.

4. Party like you just published a paper! 🎉🌈🦄💃👻🤘

   Any issues? notify your editorial technical team...

[danielskatz]

@jbasney, @jteheran - thanks very much for reviewing!

[whedon]

:tada::tada::tada: Congratulations on your paper acceptance! :tada::tada::tada:

If you would like to include a link to your paper from your README use the following code snippets:

Markdown:
[![DOI](https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01606/status.svg)](https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01606)

HTML:
<a style="border-width:0" href="https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01606">
  <img src="https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01606/status.svg" alt="DOI badge" >
</a>

reStructuredText:
.. image:: https://joss.theoj.org/papers/10.21105/joss.01606/status.svg
   :target: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01606

This is how it will look in your documentation:

We need your help!

Journal of Open Source Software is a community-run journal and relies upon volunteer effort. If you'd like to support us please consider doing either one (or both) of the the following:

• Volunteering to review for us sometime in the future. You can add your name to the reviewer list here: https://joss.theoj.org/reviewer-signup.html
• Making a small donation to support our running costs here: https://numfocus.salsalabs.org/donate-to-joss