Hi Jim, Thank you for considering the comments. Best, Meral
From: Jim Schaad [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 11:27 AM To: Meral Shirazipour <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-cose-msg-18 From: Meral Shirazipour [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:27 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-cose-msg-18 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-cose-msg-18 Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour Review Date: 2016-09-27 IETF LC End Date: 2016-09-28 IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-29 Summary: This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments. Major issues: Minor issues: " The JOSE working group produced a set of documents [RFC7515][RFC7516][RFC7517][RFC7518] using JSON that specified how to process encryption, signatures and message authentication (MAC) operations, and how to encode keys using JSON. This document defines the CBOR Object Encryption and Signing (COSE) standard which does the same thing for the CBOR encoding format. " Was there a reason to not have multiple documents for CBOR? It would be good to add this reason to section 1 in the above mentioned paragraph. [JLS] The JOSE documents were divided up in part because the solutions came into the group separately. At one point the idea was to think about combining them later into two documents, but the group ran out of energy long before we could get to that point. COSE is a single document in part to an overreaction to that experience and because it had only a single set of authors, unlike the JOSE documents. My original plan was to split it into two documents before WGLC but the group did not want that to happen. I don't think that since this is an emotional rather than technical reason for the change that there documenting that fact make sense. Nits/editorial comments: -[Page 5], "services for IoT, using CBOR"---->"services for IoT, and using CBOR" [JLS] done -[Page 5], "[RFC7515][RFC7516][RFC7517][RFC7518]" , please check hyperref for 2nd and 4th reference (they don't appear in html view https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-cose-msg-18) [JLS] Please speak to the tool developers not me on this. -[Page 5], "message authentication (MAC)"---->"Message Authentication Code (MAC)" [JLS] done -[Page 6], "There currently is"---->"There is currently" [JLS] done -[Page 7], "For this, reason"---->"For this reason," [JLS] done -[Page 8] "this works consider"---->"this works, consider" [JLS] done -general, in many section, e.g. 16.2: when listing terms+ definition, it would be clearer to add ":" in front of the term. [JLS] I'll take with the RFC Editor about this. It is partly a matter of style. -Section 19.2 refrences to be updated e.g. [I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl], is not v09 [JLS] Hey - it got published after my draft did - no fair. Best Regards, Meral --- Meral Shirazipour Ericsson Research www.ericsson.com<http://www.ericsson.com>
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
