[Ace] Fwd: FW: New Version Notification for draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-02.txt

other comments. Thanks, --Cigdem On 10/04/2018, 21:12, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Cigdem Sengul and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-sengu

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-02

Hello Ludwig, Thank you for reviewing our draft. We will start working on addressing your comments asap. Thanks, --Cigdem On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Ludwig Seitz wrote: > Hello ACE, > > I've reviewed draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-02. I think this is a > very relevant draft, due to

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-02

Hello Ludwig, Again thank you for your comments. We are going through them and making several revisions to our draft. We want to discuss two of your comments further: (1) Our text: ”and the client is authorized to obtain a token for the indicated audience (e.g., topics) and scopes (e.g., publ

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-02

, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Ludwig Seitz wrote: > On 2018-06-14 14:09, Cigdem Sengul wrote: > >> Hello Ludwig, >> >> Again thank you for your comments. >> We are going through them and making several revisions to our draft. >> >> We want to discuss two of

[Ace] Fwd: FW: New Version Notification for draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03.txt

ofile identifiers. See the DTLS profile for example: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-03#section-7 —Added the relevant text. 5. Security Considerations You should add some text here about the security implications of the limitations of MQTT v3.1 (client disconnect onl

Re: [Ace] Draft IETF 103 minutes available

been keeping the draft up-to-date, and doing our best to answer comments/reviews. As IETF newbies, we need a bit more direction on the next steps to take the draft to the WG. This way we can ready ourselves for Prague, where we hope to be present in the meeting. Thank you, --Cigdem Sengul On Tue, N

[Ace] Fwd: FW: New Version Notification for draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-04.txt

document Please let us know if you have any questions. Thanks, --Cigdem On 06/04/2019, 21:44, "internet-dra...@ietf.org" wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Cigdem Sengul and posted to the IETF repository.

Re: [Ace] Adoption call for draft-sengul-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

Thank you very much. We just republished the draft as draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-00 Thanks, --Cigdem Name: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile Revision: 00 Title: MQTT-TLS profile of ACE Document date: 2019-05-07 Group: ace Pages: 22 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile connections

Thank you for your comments. I see that we tried to cover too many options in the draft, and things got mixed up. I tried to clarify inline. * So as a client I get a token from the AS. For the first run, assume that > it has a RPK in it. > * I now connect to the server using TLS. > Quest

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile connections

a more natural fit to ACE. Thanks, --Cigdem On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 7:29 AM Ludwig Seitz wrote: > On 21/05/2019 22:35, Cigdem Sengul wrote: > > Thank you for your comments. I see that we tried to cover too many > > options in the draft, and things got mixed up.I tried to

Re: [Ace] Comments on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

Thank you, Jim, for the comments. I have created issues corresponding to each one in the GitHub repository. We will start working on them, and specifically clarify the issues 1-3 around the CONNECT message. For 4, MQTT v5 can support a challenge-response; not possible with v3 indeed. Will expand

Re: [Ace] Comments on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

Hello, Thanks, Jim, this was helpful, and it also triggered that I go back and read the introspection section of the core draft again. > > > [JLS] For introspection, but not for a published token, the token could be > “revoked” by the RS. In this case a new introspection check would lead to > t

Re: [Ace] Transporting different types of cnf objects - CBOR vs JSON

Hello, Yes, we thought supporting JSON option would be good, though indeed there is no issue with transporting CBOR. If there are no other concerns, we can define the new media type in the MQTT draft. Will add the issue to GitHub repo. --Cigdem On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:37 PM Jim Schaad wrote: >

Re: [Ace] Comments on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

verload the username and password fields in the CONNECT message for > ACE authentication. Nevertheless, the RS MUST support both methods >for supporting the token: (1) Token transport via username and >password and (2) using the new AUTH (Authentication Exchange) method. >

Re: [Ace] Transporting different types of cnf objects - CBOR vs JSON

? (1) we thought to describe by default in the document, and (2) we said MAY be supported. Is there a problem with this approach? Thanks, --Cigdem On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:29 PM Cigdem Sengul wrote: > Hello, > Yes, we thought supporting JSON option would be good, though indeed there &

Re: [Ace] Transporting different types of cnf objects - CBOR vs JSON

gt; > Ciao > Hannes > > -Original Message- > From: Ace On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann > Sent: Mittwoch, 2. Oktober 2019 15:05 > To: Cigdem Sengul > Cc: Jim Schaad ; Ludwig Seitz ; > ace@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ace] Transporting different types of cnf objects - CBOR vs

[Ace] Fwd:New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-01.txt

e-mqtt-tls-profile-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Cigdem Sengul and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile Revision: 01 Title: MQTT-TLS profile of ACE Document date: 2019-10-05 Group: ace

Re: [Ace] test planning?

Hello, Thank you, Jim, for this plan. Responses are inline. On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 2:47 AM Jim Schaad wrote: > I was going through the document and trying to figure out what a test plan > might look like. I was also trying to make sure I understood all of the > information flows. > > 1. Post

Re: [Ace] Review for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-01

Hello Jim, Thanks for this review. I have responded inline. > > > 1. Are there any specifics about using ACE over HTTP that need to be > explicitly stated some place. Some of these things might include: > a) Must be HTTPS even if encrypted requests/responses are > provided. > b)

Re: [Ace] Review for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-01

too many MQTT sessions or by sending too many tokens. > I expect this to be mentioned in the security consideration section as > well as potential mechanisms to limit these risks. > > [CS] It is indeed mentioned in this paragraph in the security consideration section. "The R

Re: [Ace] Review for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-01

Just saw it in the core document as well. Thanks, Jim. --Cigdem On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 4:21 PM Jim Schaad wrote: > Just one quick comment below > > > > *From:* Cigdem Sengul > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 30, 2019 9:13 AM > *To:* Daniel Migault > *Cc:* Jim Schaad ; ac

[Ace] Fwd: FW: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-02.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Cigdem Sengul and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile Revision: 02 Title: MQTT-TLS profile of ACE Docum

Re: [Ace] ACE@IETF106 - agenda items and presentations

Hello Jim and Daniel, I would like 10 minutes in the agenda to present the updates we made to the: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile/ I will be presenting remotely. Thanks, --Cigdem On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 6:27 PM Daniel Migault wrote: > Hi, > > > > The ACE WG

Re: [Ace] comment on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-26

Hello, Ludwig, I agree that the current draft describes specifically for when CBOR is used. When CBOR is not used, I have read it as it will act similar to Section 5.2 of [RFC6749] as you have indicated also in the ace-oauth-authz document. Theref

Re: [Ace] Call for adoption draft-palombini-ace-coap-pubsub-profile

Hello, I support the adoption of this document and will be interested in reviewing it. Kind regards, --Cigdem On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 8:45 AM Daniel Migault wrote: > Dear working group, > > As mentioned during the ACE meeting, this mail starts a call for adoption > for draft-palombini-ace-coap-

Re: [Ace] comment on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-26

believe that the most > straightforward way is to refer to RFC6749 for the error messages as you > currently do. I don't find this confusing or problematic, but YMMV. > > /Ludwig > > ________ > From: Cigdem Sengul > Sent: Thursday, No

Re: [Ace] comment on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

on sending 4.00 and 4.01 while 6749 would always send 4.00. > As a result, I would rather recommend ace-oauth-authz. Am I missing > something ? > > Yours, > Daniel > > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Migault > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 11:03 AM > To: Lud

[Ace] Review for draft-palombini-ace-coap-pubsub-profile

Hello, As I remotely promised in the WG meeting in Singapore, here is my review of the pubsub-coap document. When reviewing the document, I have kept two things in mind: how the document reads now, and whether it can easily be extended to include MQTT as well. I’ve understood including MQTT is

Re: [Ace] Certificate processing for MQTT

Hello Jim, Thank you for your email. I am in the process of revising the document for the December update agreed in Singapore, so these comments are extremely helpful. Comments are inline. On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:19 AM Jim Schaad wrote: > I got to the point of needing to start producing and va

[Ace] Version -03 prep for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

Dear Jim and Daniel, As discussed in Singapore, we've started working on the -03 based on the comments we've received. https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt-tls-profile/tree/v-03-WIP The main changes are: Version 02 to 03: 1) Added the option of Broker certificate thumbprint in the 'rs_cnf' sent to t

Re: [Ace] Review for draft-palombini-ace-coap-pubsub-profile

Dear Francesca, Thank you for your responses to my comments. My comments are inline. > > > In the following, I list a few things reading the draft made me think, > especially in its applicability to MQTT: > > (1) What is planned to make this document a generic pubsub solution? Will > there a gene

Re: [Ace] Review for draft-palombini-ace-coap-pubsub-profile

Hello Ben, Response below. > > > > > > > CS: I see that I wasn't clear in my thinking before and mixed up things. > I > > was trying to understand how groups map to topics and the topic > hierarchy; > > and how group maintenance scales with the increasing number of topics, > > publisher and subsc

[Ace] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03.txt

ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03.txt To: Paul Fremantle , Cigdem Sengul < csen...@acm.org>, Anthony Kirby A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Cigdem Sengul and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-p

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile - Validating a subscription is in scope

Hello Jim, Topic filter and permission filter matching is something that I would like to have a better resolution as well. Responses inline. On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:38 AM Jim Schaad wrote: > I have run across an interesting question for doing validation of > subscriptions that I would like to

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03

Thank you for this review, Jim. Responses inline. On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 10:33 PM Jim Schaad wrote: > > 2.2.2 - para 1, the last sentence seems to imply that the first connection > to publish to authz-info is not being done over a TLS connection. But the > sentence before that states that a TLS

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile - Validating a subscription is in scope

Hello, It gets interesting when the scope is more restricted than the subscription request. For instance, the scope is sport/+ But subscription is sport/# Should this be refused? Obviously the subscriber is attempting to subscribe to more than it has permission for. But does the broker still

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile - Validating a subscription is in scope

Hello Jim, > > > > When topic subscriptions are protected, the Broker can choose to do two > things: > > 1) Allow the subscription but internally subscribe the clients to > sport/basketball and sport/tennis only. > > or > > 2) Reject the subscription and the client needs to ask for subscriptions >

Re: [Ace] Webex meeting invitation: ACE interim meeting

Hello, Regarding the ace-mqtt-profile: - We are currently at version 3, which reorganised sections and text to improve clarity. Version 3 introduced the following: o Added the option of Broker certificate thumbprint in the 'rs_cnf' sent to the Client. o Nonce from the TLS Exporte

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03

27;publish_+/topic3'. > >If the Client is allowed to publish to the topic, the RS must publish > > While "must" may not be necessary, if used, it could be > normative. > [CS] I tried to keep MQTT musts as "must" and this profile's musts as MUST. Wo

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03

Hello Hannes, We used broker as it is a widely accepted term in the MQTT Community for "server" e.g., majority of the provider would list also a broker implementation to refer to their server implementation. With respect to whether 3.1,1 clients talking to v5, there may be some issues. This is w

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03

e interesting to hear that there is currently no way to obtain > the keys for a PoP token over HTTP, which your solution requires. The > virtual interim meeting in the OAuth group should probably be of interest > to you. > I plan to join. I have been aware of the issue, but could not

Re: [Ace] Comments on the MQTT draft

Hello Jim, Comments inline. On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 7:04 PM Jim Schaad wrote: > 1. I want to verify that the following is the desired statement: There is > a strong preference that TLS not use PSK for authentication. This follows > from the recommendation to use TLS:Anon-MQTT:ace for the auth

Re: [Ace] Comments on the MQTT draft

Hello Jim, Comments inline. Yes, I can see this can be problematic but this was to avoid the broker > keeping state for clients that are no more authorised to receive those > messages. The session state can include actual messages if QoS>=1, so maybe > high overhead. > > > The Session Expiry is a

[Ace] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-04.txt

e) for the authz-info flow. Thanks, --Cigdem -- Forwarded message - From: Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 2:39 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-04.txt To: Anthony Kirby , Cigdem Sengul , Paul Fremantle A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-a

Re: [Ace] draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-03

ommunication between the client and the authorization server over the HTTP > interface works. > > > > Ciao > > Hannes > > > > > > *From:* Hannes Tschofenig > *Sent:* Friday, February 28, 2020 11:08 AM > *To:* Cigdem Sengul > *Cc:* ace@ietf.org >

Re: [Ace] Comments on the MQTT draft

> > > [CS] Yes. We opted for not keeping any state because that indeed had too > many problematic issues. One was, as I already mentioned, extra state kept > for a time determined by the client (session expiry) - which we thought > would cause trouble. There are some non-normative text in MQTT spec

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-05.txt

ork item of the Authentication and Authorization for > Constrained Environments WG of the IETF. > > Title : MQTT-TLS profile of ACE > Authors : Cigdem Sengul > Anthony Kirby > Paul Freman

Re: [Ace] FW: Review draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-05

Hello Jim, Thank you for the comments. Responses inline. Changes in this commit On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:49 PM Jim Schaad wrote: > Let's see if I can get the mailing list right this time > > -Origi

Re: [Ace] AIF as discussed today (Re: I-D Action: draft-bormann-core-ace-aif-08.txt)

This looks what I expected from the MQTT point of view. Thanks, Jim. I will look into adding the change to the profile document now. Kind regards, --Cigdem On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:48 PM Jim Schaad wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ace On Behalf Of Francesca Palombini > > Se

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-06.txt

: MQTT-TLS profile of ACE > Authors : Cigdem Sengul > Anthony Kirby > Paul Fremantle > Filename: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-06.txt > Pages : 30 > Date: 2020-07-13

Re: [Ace] Working Group Adoption Call for draft-bormann-core-ace-aif

Hello, I support the adoption as well. As Jim said, the MQTT-TLS profile has adopted the AIF-MQTT for the scope. Thanks, --Cigdem On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 2:25 PM Marco Tiloca wrote: > Hi all, > > I support adoption of this document and I am willing to review it. > > The approach in ace-key-gro

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-06

Hello Jim, Responses inside. On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 10:50 PM Jim Schaad wrote: > Section 2.2.3 - /Clean Start to 0/Clean Start to 0, specify the previous > session number/ - I think it should be stated that the session number is > provided, which is what the state is associated with. > > To th

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-06

Hello Jim, Responses inside. > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 10:50 PM Jim Schaad > wrote: > > Section 2.2.3 - /Clean Start to 0/Clean Start to 0, specify the previous > session number/ - I think it should be stated that the session number is > provided, which is what the state is associated wit

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-06

> > > I've got that from MQTT v5 spec: > > If a Client sets an Authentication Method in the CONNECT, the Client MUST > NOT send any packets other than AUTH or DISCONNECT packets until it has > received a CONNACK packet [MQTT-3.1.2-30]. > > and: > > If the Server rejects the CONNECT, it MUST NOT pr

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-06

process any packets other than DISCONNECT or an AUTH in response to its AUTH message before it has sent a CONNACK. --Cigdem On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 7:16 PM Jim Schaad wrote: > > > > > *From:* Cigdem Sengul > *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2020 10:45 AM > *To:* J

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-07.txt

e IETF. > > Title : Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS > profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments > (ACE) Framework > Authors : Cigdem Sengul > Anthony Kirby >

Re: [Ace] WGLC draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

Hello, Thank you, Daniel, Marco and Francesca for your reviews. Much appreciated. I will start by responding to Daniel first. Comments/Responses are inline. > A) Are there existing implementations of the protocol? > [ Cigdem: This is still as I've explained in the previous IETF meeting: Implem

Re: [Ace] WGLC draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

Hello Marco, Thank you for the review. My responses are inline. Kind regards, --Cigdem > > > > [General] > > * Refer the AIF adopted draft rather than the individual submission. > > * Some references are included twice side by side, e.g. RFC 4949 and RFC > 7800. > > [Section 1] > > * Add an inlin

Re: [Ace] WGLC review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-07

Hello Francesca, Thank you for your review. My responses are inside; in the cases I have not understood a comment, I asked for clarifications. Kind regards, --Cigdem On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 2:38 PM Francesca Palombini < francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > The response includes the >

Re: [Ace] WGLC draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

Hello Marco, Responses inline. > > [CS: This is because the Authentication Data explained under 2.2.4 is > binary data. The >binary data in MQTT is represented by a two-byte integer length, which > indicates the number of data bytes, followed by that number of >bytes. > So, we have the t

Re: [Ace] WGLC draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

ber from the document. That should be sufficient > to clear most of them. I preferred to post the response earlier. > > Yours, > Daniel > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 11:05 AM Cigdem Sengul > wrote: > >> >>> >>> 2.2. Client Connection Request to the Broker (

Re: [Ace] WGLC draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile

Hello Daniel, My responses are as follows: > Just one clarification. TLS 1.3 provides two ways to authenticate the > client. One way is sending a certificaterequest during the TLS handshake > and another way is to send it after the handshake occurs. The ability to > support the first authenticat

Re: [Ace] WGLC review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-07

> > > Thanks, > Francesca > > > > *From: *Seitz Ludwig > *Date: *Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 15:39 > *To: *Francesca Palombini , Cigdem > Sengul > *Cc: *"draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-prof...@ietf.org" < > draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-prof...@ietf.org

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-08.txt

Framework > Authors : Cigdem Sengul > Anthony Kirby > Filename: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-08.txt > Pages : 33 > Date: 2020-11-01 > > Abstract: >This document specifies a profile for

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-09.txt

rization for Constrained Environments > (ACE) Framework > Authors : Cigdem Sengul > Anthony Kirby > Filename: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-09.txt > Pages : 33 > Date: 2020-12-17 > >

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-02.txt

thentication and Authorization for > Constrained Environments WG of the IETF. > > Title : Pub-Sub Profile for Authentication and > Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) > Authors : Francesca Palombini >

Re: [Ace] [EXTERNAL] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz-38: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hello, I would like to add my two cents to this as the MQTT-TLS profile does use HTTP/JSON for client-AS and rs-AS communication as similar already was supported in MQTT implementations between an MQTT broker and external servers (e.g., via auth plug-ins). For points like 13: Making CBOR mandatory

Re: [Ace] MQTT, OSCORE, DTLS profiles - recommendation on RS - AS communication

Hello Daniel, I propose the following change to clarify the TLS use - if you are happy with it, I will update the document: To provide communication confidentiality and RS authentication to MQTT clients, TLS is used, and TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] is RECOMMENDED. This document makes the same assum

Re: [Ace] MQTT, OSCORE, DTLS profiles - recommendation on RS - AS communication

> > Yours, > Daniel > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:44 AM Cigdem Sengul > wrote: > >> Hello Daniel, >> I propose the following change to clarify the TLS use - if you are happy >> with it, I will update the document: >> >> To provide communication co

Re: [Ace] MQTT, OSCORE, DTLS profiles - recommendation on RS - AS communication

te rapidly their thoughts so we can move the > draft forward. > > Regarding the second point, yes, the draft that introduces ace+json should > register it. > > Yours, > Daniel > -- > *From:* Ace on behalf of Cigdem Sengul < > cigdem.sen...@gmail.com&

[Ace] ACE WG - ace+json media type in Draft MQTT-TLS profile of ACE

erson & email address to contact for further information: Cigdem Sengul (csen...@acm.org) o Intended usage: COMMON o Restrictions on usage:none o Author: Cigdem Sengul (csen...@acm.org) o Change controller: IETF o Provisional registration? (standards tree only): no --

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-12.txt

t; > Title : Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS > profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments > (ACE) Framework > Authors : Cigdem Sengul > Anthony Kirby > Filename: dr

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-03.txt

WG of the IETF. > > Title : Pub-Sub Profile for Authentication and > Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) > Authors : Francesca Palombini > Cigdem Sengul > Filename: draft-ietf-ace-pubs

Re: [Ace] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-12

Hello Ben, Thank you very much for the review, and I will look into the pull request as soon as possible. Below I've gone over your comments and categorised them as "Discussion" if I had questions/clarifications/comments, and "Will Do" for the rest. Discussion: > Specifically, there's no requi

Re: [Ace] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-12

Hello Ben, > Hopefully you have not gotten too far along on the few items where I reply > and say that your proposed change may not be needed; I had hoped to write > this message several days ago. (That said, there really are only a few > such places; the bulk of your proposals look good.) > No

Re: [Ace] Tuesday 2021-09-14 14:00 UTC

Hello Daniel, I have a conflict for this meeting tomorrow - I will do my best to join, but I will not be able to present any updates from the IETF meeting. My summary update is: I have received AD-review for the MQTT-TLS profile, and received a pub-sub review from Marco. I am working towards addres

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-03

Hello Marco, Apologies for the late response - many thanks for the review. I think there will be some items to discuss further with Francesca, but I tried to make sure we have a plan for revisions as much as possible. Comments as usual uses [CS:] inline. Kind regards, On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 7:15

Re: [Ace] Review of draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-03

quot;. > > Thanks, > /Marco > > On 2021-10-11 18:28, Cigdem Sengul wrote: > > Hello Marco, > Apologies for the late response - many thanks for the review. > I think there will be some items to discuss further with Francesca, but I > tried to make sure we have a plan for re

Re: [Ace] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-12

Hello Ben, I thought I should comment on your original review to have the same order you initially planned. I went through all the comments, and our discussions of it. The comparison with Editor's copy and github draft is here

Re: [Ace] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-12

gt; let it linger for so long. > > I've gone through the published -13 and have a handful or two of comments > left (which I will send separately), but let me just reply here to a few > things first (inline). > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 03:23:12PM +0100, Cigdem Sengul wrot

Re: [Ace] second AD evaluation of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-13

Hello Ben, Thank you for your Pull request. I have asked for clarifications in the following. On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 8:27 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > Hi all, > > As promised, here are my comments on the -13. > > > I put some text to this effect in my pull request > (https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-pubsub-profile-04.txt

tem of the Authentication and Authorization for > Constrained Environments WG of the IETF. > > Title : Pub-Sub Profile for Authentication and > Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) > Authors : Francesca Palombini >

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-14.txt

ined Environments > (ACE) Framework > Authors : Cigdem Sengul > Anthony Kirby > Filename: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-14.txt > Pages : 43 > Date: 2022-02-17 > > Abstract: &g

Re: [Ace] Last Call: (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework)

Thank you, Ben. Kind regards, --Cigdem On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 at 23:11, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > I started the last call so as to make the cutoff for the March 10th IESG > telechat, but noticed a few things in the diff that can be tightened up. > I will try to send a PR before directorate reviews st

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15.txt

s draft is a work item of the Authentication and Authorization for > Constrained Environments WG of the IETF. > > Title : Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS > profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments > (ACE) Framework >

[Ace] ACE profiles registry range for mqtt_tls profile

Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA Question --> Which range in the ACE Profiles registry should this registration come from? Kind regards, --Cigdem -- Dr Cigdem Sengul Senior Lecturer ACM-W Europe Communications Chair, and Secretary *E* cigdem.sen...@brunel.ac.uk *Brunel University London* Dep

Re: [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15

Dear Theresa, Thank you very much for the comments. I have prepared a revised version, where the changes can be found in the following pull request: https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt-tls-profile/pull/99 If you are happy with these changes, I can submit a new ID. I also explain the changes below, in

Re: [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15

Hello, I've created a new pull request for the changes: https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt-tls-profile/pull/101 Explanations are below. > > > > > [CS: Introduced a formal definition of Network Connection to > > > MQTT-related terminology - as defined in MQTT standard. > > > To the Will definition, add

Re: [Ace] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-14

Dear Jean, Thank you for your review. I implemented changes and prepared a pull request at: https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt-tls-profile/pull/102 Below is a summary of how I revised the text according to your suggestions, and corrected references for this document (removing unused references due to

Re: [Ace] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-14

Hello Jean, Thank you for your feedback on the changes. I have updated the pull request with a new commit: https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt-tls-profile/pull/102/commits/75ac0c0a86812f359471a63f6b481b0b80482b97 Responses to questions/comments are inline below. On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 23:18, A. Jean M

Re: [Ace] [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-14

Fixed back in the new commit. Thank you! I wasn't sure how to react to downref comment. On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 23:39, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 11:27:40PM +, Francesca Palombini wrote: > > > > Just one note: for the downref to informative documents (for those > documents

Re: [Ace] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with COMMENT)

Dear Lars, Thank you very much for your comments - I especially appreciated the nudge for inclusive language and tried to address them as best as I could. I know it was stated that there was no need to inform changes, but let me share the PR

Re: [Ace] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hello Murray, Thank you for your review. Our thinking was as Ben explained. In the draft, we used MUST/MUST NOT for the behaviour that affected security, and SHOULD for desired behaviour. Would the following revision make it more clear: "The Broker MUST NOT forward messages to unauthorized subscr

Re: [Ace] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hello Francesca, Thank you for your feedback. My response is below. On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 10:03, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker < nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: Discuss > > When responding,

Re: [Ace] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with COMMENT)

Dear Roman, Thank you for your comments. I tried to respond to them inline below. (I have made fixes here: https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt-tls-profile/pull/104 ) On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 23:02, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draf

Re: [Ace] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

’s opinion is welcome as the > creator of the registry (lacking the Designated expert that is not yet > assigned). > > > > > > Francesca > > > > *From: *Cigdem Sengul > *Date: *Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 12:57 > *To: *Francesca Palombini > *Cc: *The I

Re: [Ace] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Kind regards, --Cigdem On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 15:23, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Hi Cigdem, > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 12:54 AM Cigdem Sengul > wrote: > >> Thank you for your review. Our thinking was as Ben explained. >> In the draft, we used MUST/MUST NOT

Re: [Ace] Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

pull/106/commits/7c17a3f017f42ad795fab277c7983b147eeb40fd> Let me know if this pull request addresses your DISCUSS, and I will publish a new ID. Kind regards, --Cigdem On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 16:08, Cigdem Sengul wrote: > Dear Murray, > > Got it - I realise I wasn't clear w

Re: [Ace] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-16.txt

on and Authorization for Constrained Environments > (ACE) Framework > Authors : Cigdem Sengul > Anthony Kirby > Filename: draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-16.txt > Pages : 45 > Date: 2

Re: [Ace] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-16: (with COMMENT)

Dear Murray, Thank you. artart review comments were addressed in this pull request . I aimed to address your other comments in this commit , wh

  1   2   >