Hi, We got two excellent reviews of draft-ietf-anima-grasp-09 from Joel Halpern and Charlie Perkins. In fact the WG owes Charlie a big round of applause for the thoroughness of his review.
Of course, the authors will fix all the issues that are mistakes, omissions, or lack of clarity. We will get a -10 draft out before the deadline, which we hope people can check before the IETF. There are three larger issues where WG or WG Chair or AD input is needed: 1. Normative dependency on a draft. We use CDDL, which is still far from being a published standards track RFC (draft-greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl). This could hold up the GRASP RFC indefinitely. Proposed resolution: add an appendix specifying only the subset of CDDL we need. This has already been drafted so is quite feasible to do quickly. - Split the document? [Charlie Perkins] "parts of the document seem more philosophical than prescriptive... It should be considered to break the document into a Requirements document and a more rigorously defined protocol solution document." Proposed resolution: writing a separate requirements document was essentially excluded when the WG was chartered. Unless the WG and AD want to backtrack on that, the proposed resolution is to *not* do this. Of course, all the specific review comments about non-rigorous text will be actioned. - Clarify security [Charlie Perkins] "In some places, ACP seems to be mandated, and in other places that is relaxed to mean "a sufficient security mechanism". It would be better to identify the security requirements, and put them unmistakably in the Security Considerations section, which deserves to have teeth." (and various detailed comments in the text) Of course we will deal with the detailed comments and fix the inconsistencies. The larger issue is whether we should move most of the security discussion to the Security Considerations section. Speaking only for myself, I think it would be a mistake, because at the moment it seems to me that the security issues are mentioned where they most logically fit. Proposed resolution: TBD Brian (as co-editor of the draft) _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
