Thanks for your review, Christer. Replies are inline, prefixed by "Mike>"…
-----Original Message----- From: Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 10:44 AM To: gen-art@ietf.org Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession....@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; a...@ietf.org Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-08 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review result: Ready with Issues 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 <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrac.ietf.org%2Ftrac%2Fgen%2Fwiki%2FGenArtfaq&data=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C4ffc136d2e014bc995db08d748f27b79%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C637058078607739810&sdata=Lusqkbg276AKiI%2Fd5MNEMGYKLcP3y%2FfrHP5L1u6UqYw%3D&reserved=0>. Document: draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-08 Reviewer: Christer Holmberg Review Date: 2019-10-04 IETF LC End Date: 2019-10-09 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: For most part the document is ready, but I have a few editorial comments and an issue. Major issues: N/A Minor issues: The text says in the Security Considerations that one must ensure that the might not understand the "cnf" claim, and that applications must ensure that receivers support it. Q1: How are you going to ensure that, and why do you have to ensure that? RFC 8392 doesn't even seem to require that one must ensure that the receivers support CWT. Mike> I agree that this text isn't actually actionable. I propose that we simply delete it. Q2: For receivers that do support CWT, RFC 8392 says that unsupported claims must be discarded. If that can't be applied for "cnf" I think you need to explain why. Mike> The RFC 8392 requirement does apply. This is also aligned with the text in 3.1, so I don't think there are any changes needed to the spec for this. Nits/editorial comments: Q_ED_1: Please use [RFC8392] instead of [CWT] when referencing to RFC 8392. Mike> OK – will do. Q_ED_2: Shall CBOR be enhanced on first occurrence (in the Abstract or Introduction), or is it on the list of well-known abbreviations? Mike> I’d be glad to expand it to enhance readability. Q_ED_3: Add a reference for CBOR map on first occurrence. (I was looking in RFC 7049, and while it mentions maps in many places I could not find a proper definition for "CBOR map") Mike> Sure. I can add a reference to Section 2.1 of RFC 7049.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
