Replying to myself, I have added a note to the first issue. On 05/03/2017 15:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi, > > We got two excellent reviews of draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09 > from Joel Halpern and Charlie Perkins. In fact the WG owes > Charlie a big round of applause for the thoroughness of his > review. > > Of course, the authors will fix all the issues that are > mistakes, omissions, or lack of clarity. We will get > a -10 draft out before the deadline, which we hope people > can check before the IETF. > > There are three larger issues where WG or WG Chair or AD > input is needed: > > 1. Normative dependency on a draft. > > We use CDDL, which is still far from being a published > standards track RFC (draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl). > This could hold up the GRASP RFC indefinitely. > > Proposed resolution: add an appendix specifying only > the subset of CDDL we need. This has already been drafted > so is quite feasible to do quickly.
Note: since we have other normative dependencies on drafts, we could delay this change until later. > > - Split the document? [Charlie Perkins] > > "parts of the document seem more philosophical than > prescriptive... It should be considered to break the document > into a Requirements document and a more rigorously defined > protocol solution document." > > Proposed resolution: writing a separate requirements document > was essentially excluded when the WG was chartered. Unless the > WG and AD want to backtrack on that, the proposed resolution > is to *not* do this. Of course, all the specific review comments > about non-rigorous text will be actioned. > > - Clarify security [Charlie Perkins] > > "In some > places, ACP seems to be mandated, and in other places that is relaxed > to mean "a sufficient security mechanism". It would be better to > identify the security requirements, and put them unmistakably in the > Security Considerations section, which deserves to have teeth." > > (and various detailed comments in the text) > > Of course we will deal with the detailed comments and fix the > inconsistencies. The larger issue is whether we should move most > of the security discussion to the Security Considerations section. > > Speaking only for myself, I think it would be a mistake, because > at the moment it seems to me that the security issues are > mentioned where they most logically fit. > > Proposed resolution: TBD > > Brian (as co-editor of the draft) > _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
