Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-28: 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-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) §1.3.2 (Constrained environments): "Those types of networks SHOULD NOT use this solution." The use of Normative language seems out of place: if this document is not applicable to constrained environments, then there's no way to enforce (SHOULD NOT)... s/SHOULD NOT/should not (2) §2.1: In Figure 2, should the "rejected" action be a result of step 3 (instead of 2)? | | | +------v-------+ | | (2) Identity | ^------------+ | | rejected +------+-------+ | | | +------v-------+ | | (3) Request | | | Join | | +------+-------+ | | (3) s/The serialNumber fields is defined in [RFC5280], and is a SHOULD field in [IDevID]./The serialNumber field is defined in [RFC5280], and is a recommended field in [IDevID]. Note that SHOULD is not used properly here because it does not have a Normative quality (as it refers to the other document). I'm assuming that the replacement is "recommended" (per rfc2119), but it may be "required". (4) [nits] s/Bootstrapping to is complete/Bootstrapping is complete §1: "This bootstrap process satisfies the [RFC7575] section 3.3 of making all operations secure by default." Satisfies the what? Requirement, maybe? s/explains the details applicability/explains the detailed applicability s/out-of-band" information"/out-of-band" information s/This section applies is normative for uses with an ANIMA ACP./This section is normative for uses with an ANIMA ACP. s/RFC XXXX: Manufacturer Usage Description Specification/RFC 8520: Manufacturer Usage Description Specification s/might be previous deployed/might be previously deployed s/were receives by/were received from s/{{...}}/[...] _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
