Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-20: 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-anima-brski-prm/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Version -20 addresses all my comments, hence my new No Objection ballot. # Below is for easy archiving (feel free to ignore) Thank you for the work put into this document (even using nice SVG graphics!), I am afraid that my review was rather superficial (lack of time due to last week AI pref interim), but I trust the responsible AD. It is also interesting to see how the scope has increased in the 10 years of ANIMA (while staying in the charter) from always-on big routers network to IoT. Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education), and some nits. Special thanks to Matthias Kovatsch for the shepherd's detailed write-up including the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status. Other thanks to David Lawrence, the DNS directorate reviewer, please consider this dns-dir review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm/reviewrequest/21545/ (thanks Steffen for your reply) I hope that this review helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric ## DISCUSS (archived) As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a DISCUSS ballot is just a request to have a discussion on the following topics: ### Section 6.1.2 It appears that there is no restriction on 'product-serial-number' in this section and for mDNS a label has a strict syntax, i.e., if the serial number is always composed of only digits or A-2 or '-', then all is good, but if there is a dot, then all is bad or if the serial number if longer than 255 characters... Can this syntax check be added ? `Note that the service name definition is not fully inline with the naming recommendation of [RFC6763]. However, the definition allows to discover specific instances of a pledge.` the readers and implementers will appreciate some explanations for the deviation and how to minimize the impact. ## COMMENTS (archived) ### Section 4 Please expand `BTLE` (usually written BLE I think). And section 7 uses a different acronym in `Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), or Near Field Communication (NFC)` `over other technologies like BTLE or NFC, which may not support TLS protected communication` but the 6LO WG has defined IP over these media, i.e., COAP could be used. Suggest adding text why 6LO WG technologies cannot be used. `The use of authenticated self-contained objects addresses both, the TLS challenges` for sure mTLS offers authentication, but it also offers confidentiality and that is not the case for `authenticated self-contained objects`. Or did I miss something obvious ? ### Section 5 About the title s/5. Solution Architecture/5. Architecture/ ### Section 5.1 I was about to DISCUSS this point as I find *very unusual* to refer to another PDF document rather than having a SVG/ASCII ART diagram in the I-D... `An abstract overview of the BRSKI-PRM protocol can be found on slide 8 of [BRSKI-PRM-abstract].` In which figure ? `Note that the Join Proxy is not shown in the figure` ? I guess it is about figure 1, but let's be precise. Figure 1, what does `drop ship` means on this figure ? ### Section 6.1.2 I noted that authors of the related draft-ietf-anima-brski-discovery also tried to interact with the DNSSD WG, see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnssd/rWqgj_c_ZRT6CTGi7gby1r5FdLQ/ which is good of course. Thanks. ### Section 10.2 While I noted that the datatrack IANA note says OK, please add the exact URI for the IANA registry as I was unable to find it in https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml?search=brski-pledge if this was the intended registry then s/IANA has registered the following service name*s*/IANA is requested to register the following service name/ ## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic) ### Section 7.2.2.2 (and other places) You may want to use 2025 rather than 2022 ;-) _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- anima@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to anima-le...@ietf.org
