Thanks for your review, Adam. The questionable comment syntax that you pointed
out has been changed to the unsurprising representation /HMAC 256-256/ in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-10#section-3.3.
Best wishes,
-- Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 11:07 PM
To: The IESG <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on
draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory
paragraph, however.)
Please refer to
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html&data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C1c9c12805d7c4b7ed6f408d75c3641ff%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637079260432123647&sdata=yV4geJmqHs6nE2KEz1HxXf55xRRlGQJdLgHEeKkzxus%3D&reserved=0
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession%2F&data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C1c9c12805d7c4b7ed6f408d75c3641ff%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637079260432123647&sdata=iOQpEcoj42%2FrW8qN8c38l931EGH%2BTM0qNgL1aC9aM3E%3D&reserved=0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the work everyone put into defining this mechanism. I have one very
minor comment that the authors may wish to take into account.
ยง3.3:
> /alg/ 3 : /HMAC256//256/ 5,
This use of "//" seems problematic, given RFC 8610's vague reservation of this
sequence for some kind of "comment to end of line" designation:
(There are currently no end-of-line comments. If we want to add
them, "//" sounds like a reasonable delimiter given that we already
use slashes for comments, but we could also go, for example,
for "#".)
Given the potential ambiguity introduced by RFC 8610, perhaps consider some
other syntax here instead of "//".
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
