perfect! Deb
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:15 AM Dan Garcia Carrillo <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Deb, > > Thank you for your time to review the document. > > > El 25/7/23 a las 1:01, Deb Cooley via Datatracker escribió: > > Reviewer: Deb Cooley > > Review result: Has Issues > > > > I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's > > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > > IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the > > security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat > > these comments just like any other last call comments. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-08 > > Reviewer: Deb Cooley > > Review Date: 2023-07-24 (early review) > > > > The summary of the review is 'Has Issues'. > > > > 0. I agree with the terminology comment made by Elliott. I kept losing > the > > connections between all the IOT device/Controller, COaP Client/Server, > and EAP > > Authenticator/Peer terminology. My suggestion would be to pick one > (Elliott > > suggests the EAP terminology) for the document and then construct use > > cases/examples linking that terminology to the COaP and IOT terminology. > Thank you for confirming the new direction that should be taken with the > terminology, we will address it in the next version. > > > > 1. Section 3.2, steps for the operation: There are overlap in these > steps? > > Step 0 has part of Step 1 ('the Controller MUST send the first > message)? I > > would consolidate these steps to remove the overlap. Step 0 is done by > the IOT > > device, Step 1 is done by the Controller, etc. > Good point, thank you. There should not be any overlap between the > steps, we will remove the text to avoid any confusion. > > 2. Section 3.3: The IOT device is the EAP authenticator, but it > determines > > when to initiate re-authentication? This seems awkward. Is it typical? > The IoT device is always the EAP peer, even in the re-authentication > phase. Hopefully, after the terminology is rewritten this should be > clearer. > > > > 3. Section 5.1, cipher suite list #0: I'm unfamiliar with this > notation, does > > it imply that one could choose AES-CCM with 16, 64, or 128? Does one > need to > > be able to do all of these options? Note: this is also in the IANA > section. > > Thank you for pointing this out. Here we are referring to OSCORE's > cihpersuites. > > We should explicitly state that those are COSE Algorithms, for that > case that is specifically referencing to the COSE algorithm 10. We will > refer to these property in the next version. > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/cose/cose.xhtml#algorithms > > > > 4. General: There are some grammar/English changes required (note: the > > authors' English is 1000% better than my Spanish). I did not have the > cycles > > to make specific comments on this, my apologies. > > Thank you, we will surely review the grammar before resubmitting the > document. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ace mailing list > > [email protected] > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QnIN9pARnbo037Mo0cKfXKFixr6ydUbxKQ6jtXkgC98wSWVCIxmgcv3U5Uql66IiYfisewb6TE2ySUTq$ >
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
