Dear Murray,
Thank you for the review and the comments.
Please, see answers inline.
El 21/11/24 a las 5:47, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker escribió:
Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap-11: Discuss
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 tohttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QCTbtyNvZXnmxr-EfVW0edwYdmUGwjjrLvcsEBOX_lj434iThVgwVf216v0EVRruEvYZLMGY3Q7kO9td$
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-wg-coap-eap/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QCTbtyNvZXnmxr-EfVW0edwYdmUGwjjrLvcsEBOX_lj434iThVgwVf216v0EVRruEvYZLMGY3VOauyiQ$
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The absence of an answer to question #21 in the shepherd writeup is telling.
For a Designated Expert review registry, of which this document creates two (in
Sections 9.1 and 9.2), BCP 26 says:
The required documentation and review criteria, giving clear guidance
to the designated expert, should be provided when defining the
registry.
This appears to be absent here. Is there any guidance for the DE that might be
appropriate?
Authors> We have added the following section
Expert Review Instructions The IANA registries established in this
document are defined as "Specification Required", "Private Use",
"Standards Action with Expert Review" and "Specification Required". This
section provides general guidelines for what experts should focus on,
but as they are designated experts for a reason, they should be granted
flexibility. - When defining the use of CoAP-EAP Information Elements:
Experts are expected to evaluate how the values are defined, their
scope, and whether they align with CoAP-EAP's functionality and
constraints. They are expected to assess if the values are clear,
well-structured, and follow CoAP and CoAP-EAP conventions, such as
concise encoding for constrained environments. They should ensure these
IEs can seamlessly integrate with existing CoAP implementations and
extensions. It is also expected that they verify if IE values are
protected from unauthorized modification or misuse during transmission.
- When adding new ciphersuites: Experts must ensure that algorithm
values are sourced from the appropriate registry when required. They
should also consider seeking input from relevant IETF working groups
regarding the accuracy of registered parameters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I support Orie's DISCUSS position, plus his question about the peculiar SHOULD.
"MSK" is used in Section 1 before being defined in Section 3.2. (They're also
my initials; I thought I was being trolled.)
"HKDF" is used in Section 6.1 before it is defined later in that section.
Authors > We expanded the initials, sorry about the confusion.
Sections 9.3 through 9.6 are adding things to existing registries. There's no
need to re-state their registration policies.
In Appendix A, I suggest changing "Analogously" to "Analogous".
Authors > We changed it, thank you.
--
Dan García Carrillo
---------------------
Departamento de Informática, Área de Telemática, Universidad de Oviedo
2.7.8 - Escuela Politécnica de Ingeniería, 33204, Campus de Viesques, Gijón
Tel.: +34 985182654 (Ext. 2654) | email:garcia...@uniovi.es
_______________________________________________
Ace mailing list -- ace@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ace-le...@ietf.org
