[Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-18: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-18: 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-ace-coap-est/ -- COMMENT: -- Thanks for addressing my discuss and comments! ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
[Ace] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-coap-est-17: Discuss 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-ace-coap-est/ -- DISCUSS: -- Thanks for the work that the authors and working group put into this document. I have one DISCUSS-level comment that should be very easy to resolve, and a small number of editorial nits. --- §9: Since this specification is adding new endpoints under /.well-known/est, it needs to update the "Well-Known URIs" registry so that the entry for "est" indicates this document (in addition to RFC 7030). -- COMMENT: -- §5.3: > The Content-Format (HTTP Media-Type equivalent) of the CoAP message HTTP doesn't have a "Media-Type" field. Presumably this intends to say "Content-Type"? --- §5.3: > Media-Types specified in the HTTP Content-Type header (Section 3.2.2 Nit "...header field..." --- §5.5: > HTTP response code 202 with a Retry-After header in [RFC7030] has no Nit "...header field..." ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: (with COMMENT)
Thanks! Looks good to me. /a On 10/30/19 7:41 PM, Mike Jones wrote: Thanks for your review, Adam. The questionable comment syntax that you pointed out has been changed to the unsurprising representation /HMAC 256-256/ in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-10#section-3.3. Best wishes, -- Mike -Original Message- From: Adam Roach via Datatracker Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 11:07 PM To: The IESG Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possess...@ietf.org; ace-cha...@ietf.org; r...@cert.org; ace@ietf.org Subject: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: (with COMMENT) Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: 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://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.htmldata=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C1c9c12805d7c4b7ed6f408d75c3641ff%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637079260432123647sdata=yV4geJmqHs6nE2KEz1HxXf55xRRlGQJdLgHEeKkzxus%3Dreserved=0 for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession%2Fdata=02%7C01%7CMichael.Jones%40microsoft.com%7C1c9c12805d7c4b7ed6f408d75c3641ff%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637079260432123647sdata=iOQpEcoj42%2FrW8qN8c38l931EGH%2BTM0qNgL1aC9aM3E%3Dreserved=0 -- COMMENT: -- Thanks for the work everyone put into defining this mechanism. I have one very minor comment that the authors may wish to take into account. §3.3: /alg/ 3 : /HMAC256//256/ 5, This use of "//" seems problematic, given RFC 8610's vague reservation of this sequence for some kind of "comment to end of line" designation: (There are currently no end-of-line comments. If we want to add them, "//" sounds like a reasonable delimiter given that we already use slashes for comments, but we could also go, for example, for "#".) Given the potential ambiguity introduced by RFC 8610, perhaps consider some other syntax here instead of "//". ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
[Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: 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-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession/ -- COMMENT: -- Thanks for the work everyone put into defining this mechanism. I have one very minor comment that the authors may wish to take into account. §3.3: > /alg/ 3 : /HMAC256//256/ 5, This use of "//" seems problematic, given RFC 8610's vague reservation of this sequence for some kind of "comment to end of line" designation: (There are currently no end-of-line comments. If we want to add them, "//" sounds like a reasonable delimiter given that we already use slashes for comments, but we could also go, for example, for "#".) Given the potential ambiguity introduced by RFC 8610, perhaps consider some other syntax here instead of "//". ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
Re: [Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cbor-web-token-13: (with COMMENT)
On 3/7/18 11:47 PM, Mike Jones wrote: The point of including new CWT definitions for "StringOrURI" and "NumericDate" was so that we could use them directly. Prefixing them with "CWT" isn't necessary for the meaning to be clear in context. Given that the current formulation confused both Benjamin and me, I think this assertion doesn't hold up to scrutiny. /a ___ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
