Hi Marco, > I think it would read better if bullet 4 was merged into bullet 2 altogether. > I have made a proposal as a PR at [1].
Agree. Looks good. I suggested an editorial change in the same PR. Göran From: Marco Tiloca <marco.til...@ri.se> Date: Friday, 2 June 2023 at 15:08 To: Göran Selander <goran.selan...@ericsson.com>, Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org>, ace-cha...@ietf.org <ace-cha...@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notificat...@ietf.org <draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notificat...@ietf.org> Subject: Re: Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification Hi Göran, Thanks a lot! Regarding point 21 on the Expert Review Instructions, I think it would read better if bullet 4 was merged into bullet 2 altogether. I have made a proposal as a PR at [1]. Please have a look. Best, /Marco [1] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-revoked-token-notification/pull/2 <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501cfaf3-313273af-454445554331-8e4ec944ccdfc0a0&q=1&e=d4d41e59-e93b-4ba5-9097-4fb7e638fa1d&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Face-wg%2Face-revoked-token-notification%2Fpull%2F2> On 2023-06-02 13:58, Göran Selander wrote: Hi, Here is my shepherd review of draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification. 1. The working group consensus represents a strong concurrence of 7+ individuals with others being silent. 2-3. No controversy / discontent regarding particular points has been recorded. 4. There is an existing implementation by Marco Rasori, CNR: https://bitbucket.org/marco-rasori-iit/ace-java/src/ucs/ <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501cfaf3-313273af-454445554331-a887080a27565fc8&q=1&e=d4d41e59-e93b-4ba5-9097-4fb7e638fa1d&u=https%3A%2F%2Feur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fbitbucket.org%252Fmarco-rasori-iit%252Face-java%252Fsrc%252Fucs%252F%26data%3D05%257C01%257Cmarco.tiloca%2540ri.se%257C3e72876fc6c4467a185408db6360cb5a%257C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%257C0%257C0%257C638213039606562556%257CUnknown%257CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%253D%257C3000%257C%257C%257C%26sdata%3Duxc6sPqTlxC1JWI%252FN504UYJpal6EA5LA4vWzLtY1uJQ%253D%26reserved%3D0> 5. The contents relate to the constrained RESTful cluster of work which covers several working groups, but is essentially a "leaf-draft" which provides a feature for the ACE framework. 6. MIB and YANG seems not relevant. Media type and CoAP content-format review criteria are met. 7. The document does not contain YANG 8. No formal review tools have been used. Two simple examples of CDDL are included. 9. The draft is ready for AD review 10. No areas have identified any issues, area reviews still to come 11. The draft aims to be Proposed Standard, which is the proper type of RFC for this kind of protocol. The datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent. 12. None of the authors of the current version (-05) are aware of any IPR that affects this draft. (Question asked by ACE chair earlier this year.) 13. All authors of the current version (-05) are willing to be listed as an author. (Question asked by ACE chair earlier this year.) 14. No remaining nits were found. 15. Normative and Informative References seems to be correctly attributed. 16. All normative references are freely available to anyone. 17. No normative downward references. All normative references are either BCP, Proposed Standard or Internet Standard. 18. No normative references to documents that are not ready to be submitted to the IESG for publication or otherwise in unclear state. 19. Publication of this document will not change the status of any existing RFCs. 20. IANA considerations The required IANA assignments are complete and appropriate. The IANA considerations contain two registrations: - media type for messages defined in this protocol and - the associated CoAP content format. and two new registries, listed in the next point. The required IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. The referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Each newly created IANA registry specifies initial contents, allocations procedures, and have a reasonable name . 21. The following new IANA registries are requested: - ACE Token Revocation List Parameters - ACE Token Revocation List Errors The instructions to the Designated Expert are clear, but there are seem to be duplicate instructions in bullets 2 and 4: - 'Specifications are needed for the "Expert Review" range if they are expected to be used outside of closed environments in an interoperable way. When specifications are not provided, the description provided needs to have sufficient information to identify what the point is being used for.' - ‘When specifications are not provided for a request where "Expert Review" is the assignment policy, the description provided needs to have sufficient information to verify the code points above.' Some of the authors should be request to be designated experts. In summary, with possible exception for the duplicate instructions mentioned in item 21, the document is ready to progress. Göran -- Marco Tiloca Ph.D., Senior Researcher Phone: +46 (0)70 60 46 501 RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB Box 1263 164 29 Kista (Sweden) Division: Digital Systems Department: Computer Science Unit: Cybersecurity https://www.ri.se <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=31323334-501cfaf3-313273af-454445554331-a2af4f4abfca7a5f&q=1&e=d4d41e59-e93b-4ba5-9097-4fb7e638fa1d&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ri.se%2F>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
