Here is a new review - the sooner you ask about anything that is unclear the
more likely I will remember what I was referring to.
Jim
* In figure 4: The CDDL is not correct. "2*role" should be "2*role:tstr"
or role should be defined as a separate item
* Section 3.2 - The third to last
This is not a finished review, but I wanted to get it out
Jim
Section 1 - last paragraph - the first sentence in this paragraph is giving
me fits trying to understand it. I would suggest something, but I really
don't understand it.
General - Update the reference to RFC 7049 to the bis draft.
This is a review based just on reading through the document. Comments based
on trying to implement after some time.
After reading this, you have started down the path of being RESTful, but you
are definitely not there yet. You need to examine statements like "GET
method is safe, meaning that
19 7:22 AM
To: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupc...@ietf.org
Cc: ace@ietf.org
Subject: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm
Hello Francesca, Marco,
I have finally managed to read the whole of draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm
and have a few comments for you:
Hi Ludwig,
Thank you so much for your detailed review! We have addressed your comments in
the -03 update submitted. It might be a bit hard to see from the diff, as we
also made a restructuring based on comments at IETF105, but I answer to
detailed comments inline.
Thanks again,
Francesca
On
Hi Ludwig,
Thank you very much for your review! We have addressed your points in
the recently submitted v -03.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore-03
Please, see our replies inline below.
Best,
/Marco
On 7/22/19 1:14 PM, Ludwig Seitz wrote:
> Hello Marco, Jiye,
-Original Message-
From: Ace On Behalf Of Ludwig Seitz
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 7:22 AM
To: draft-ietf-ace-key-groupc...@ietf.org
Cc: ace@ietf.org
Subject: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm
Hello Francesca, Marco,
I have finally managed to read the whole of draft-ietf
