Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: 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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated), and some nits. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric == COMMENTS == Is there any reason to use DTLS 1.2 while the document DTLS 1.3 is on the same IESG telechat ? I understand that they are from different WG but this may not be the most efficient to specify a protocol using DTLS. -- Section 3.1 -- Has the "resource owner (RO)" been defined earlier ? -- Section 3.2.2 -- The wrong selection of RPK recovery is unclear to me. What happens if the client does not have the right public key ? == NITS == Sometimes it is "Raw Public Keys", or "RPK" or "RawPublicKey"... Is it on purpose to use 3 different writings for possibly the same concept? _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
