Dear Authors/Chairs/ADs (cc: ace WG), Please see below for comments from an expert for the Interface Description (if=) Link Target Attribute Values registration.
Please note that we will also need a response by the authors to pending IANA questions by tomorrow; otherwise, we will have to mark this as "IANA NOT OK." Best regards, David Dong IANA Services Sr. Specialist > The registration of this if= type is fundamentally appropriate. > However, there are some aspects of its description that could use > improvement. > > * The description uses the term ‘ace group’ to stand for ace.group. > That could be confusing, but probably will not lead to > interoperability problems. > > * The description could be pointing to Section 4.1 (of course, a > search will also find that section). > > * Section 4.1 defines a number of resources. Which of these is the > one that the link marked if= should point to? One might think that it > is the one named /ace-group as an example, and not the individual ones > named /ace-group/GROUPNAME. However, the examples in draft-tiloca- > core-oscore-discovery indicate otherwise. > It would be preferable to make the answer to this question explicit in > ace-key-groupcomm (an example for such a link in ace-key-groupcomm > would also help). > Deferring much of the actual definition of the if= type to draft- > tiloca-core-oscore-discovery while already registering it here does > not work very well for this specification reader. > > Grüße, Carsten > > > [1]: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-tiloca-core-oscore- > discovery-14.html _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
