Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-cose-msg-18

2016-09-29 Thread Meral Shirazipour 
Hi Jim,
  Thank you for considering the comments.

Best,
Meral

From: Jim Schaad [mailto:i...@augustcellars.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 11:27 AM
To: Meral Shirazipour <meral.shirazip...@ericsson.com>; 
draft-ietf-cose-msg@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-cose-msg-18



From: Meral Shirazipour [mailto:meral.shirazip...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:27 PM
To: 
draft-ietf-cose-msg@tools.ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-cose-msg@tools.ietf.org>;
 gen-art@ietf.org<mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
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
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-cose-msg-18

2016-09-29 Thread Jari Arkko 
Many thanks for your review, Meral!

Jari



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-cose-msg-18

2016-09-28 Thread Jim Schaad 
 

 

From: Meral Shirazipour [mailto:meral.shirazip...@ericsson.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:27 PM
To: draft-ietf-cose-msg@tools.ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org
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
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

[Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-cose-msg-18

2016-09-28 Thread Meral Shirazipour 
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 
.


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.




Nits/editorial comments:

-[Page 5], "services for IoT, using CBOR">"services for IoT, and using CBOR"
-[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)
-[Page 5], "message authentication (MAC)">"Message Authentication Code 
(MAC)"
-[Page 6], "There currently is">"There is currently"
-[Page 7], "For this, reason">"For this reason,"
-[Page 8] "this works consider">"this works, consider"
-general, in many section, e.g. 16.2: when listing terms+ definition, it would 
be clearer to add ":" in front of the term.
-Section 19.2 refrences to be updated
e.g.
[I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl], is not v09

Best Regards,
Meral
---
Meral Shirazipour
Ericsson Research
www.ericsson.com
___
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art