Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification-08: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the work done on this document and thanks as well to Niklas Widell for his IoT directorate review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification-08-iotdir-telechat-widell-2024-07-04/), may I suggest to the authors to reply to Niklas' comments ? Just a nit on this I-D: the text often uses Capitalisation, which is probably not required and is just an eye distraction (e.g., "Client" or "Server") and as noted by Niklas, some acronyms are introduced several times and/or never used. As a side note, I am unsure whether the whole section 3.1 is useful as it seems to repeat what is specified in other documents. Also, unsure whether using CBOR only on the TRL when the actual tokens can be CBOR or JSON is a simplification for the RS. In section 6, is there a specification of an "administrator" in `If the requester is an administrator` ? Kudos for using SVG graphics ;-) _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list -- ace@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ace-le...@ietf.org
