Hi Carsten, Please see inline ...
> -----Original Message----- > From: iesg <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann > Sent: 08 March 2022 21:12 > To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; The IESG <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-aif-06: (with DISCUSS > and COMMENT) > > Hi Rob, > > thank you for this feedback! > > I’m currently collecting updates into https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif until > the ID submission opens again. > > > On 2022-03-07, at 17:46, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > DISCUSS: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hopefully an easy one to fix or clarify: > > > > * The set of numbers is converted into a single number REST-method- > > set by taking each number to the power of two and computing the > > inclusive OR of the binary representations of all the power > > values. > > > > I just wanted to check that this is expressed the right way round? I read > > "taking each number to power of two" as meaning taking the square of > each > > method number. Whereas, I would have assumed that what you mean is > "two to the > > power of each method number", i.e., each REST method is indicated by a > binary > > bit position in a potentially 64 bit number? > > > > E.g., a/led should be 2^0 | 2^2 = 5 > > Indeed. As an original German speaker, I find the English language way to > talk about exponentiation clumsy and confusing; so thank you for fixing this > up for me. :-) > > Fixed in https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/commit/4b07e69 Looks good to me. I will clear the discuss. > > (I’m not sure I should go the lengths of explaining this I went to in > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9100.html#figure-1 :-) Oh, I don't know, you must have been quite pleased to get a maths equation cleanly into an RFC :-). But, for clarity, I think that you are good with your proposed text above. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > For a method X, the presence of a Dynamic-X permission means that the > > subject holds permission to exercise the method X on resources that > > have been returned in a 2.01 (201) response by a Location-indicating > > mechanism to a request that the subject made to the resource listed > > (/a/make-coffee in the example shown in Table 2, which might return > > the location of a resource that allows GET to find out about the > > status and DELETE to cancel the coffee-making operation). > > > > It might be helpful to indicate that 2.01 means "created" (I had to look it > > up), and perhaps expand "which might return the location of a resource" to > > "which might return the location of a coffee machine resource" > > … and to break up the monster sentence. > > Fixed in https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/commit/d7748f3 Thanks, Rob > > Grüße, Carsten _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
