Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: Discuss
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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Updating my ballot after reviewing draft-ietf-ace-aif-06. Just want to make sure we don't miss anything, please feel free to correct me if I missed the mark here. FP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-aif-06#section-4 states: default values are the values "URI-local- part" for Toid and "REST-method-set" for Tperm, as per Section 3 of the present specification. A specification that wants to use Generic AIF with different Toid and/or Tperm is expected to request these as media type parameters (Section 5.2) and register a corresponding Content-Format (Section 5.3). FP: I wonder if this document should define a new media type parameter for Tperm (as REST-method-set is not appropriate for "pub"/"sub" value) and register a corresponding Content-Format as indicated in the paragraph above. CC'ing Carsten for his opinion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document Many thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ART ART review: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/REdbeKR0FBJ1CnVtKOUaJnaeONk/, and to the authors for addressing it. Only two minor comments easy to fix, see below. Francesca 1. ----- FP: Please replace references to RFC7230 with draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 which will obsolete it once published. Note that draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 is already with the RFC Editor so will not delay publication of your document. 2. ----- Section 7.3 FP: I believe this profile should be registered in the Standards track portion of the registry - please add a note about it so that IANA is aware, changing for example: OLD: * CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA NEW: * CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA in the (-256, 255) range _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
