Mercurial > hg > ietf

comparison ace-key-groupcomm-review.txt @ 8:d4e5d6b079bc default tip

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
merge
author Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
date Tue, 02 Jul 2024 13:51:47 +0100
parents ac8f4ba48e08
children
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
7:328798b2a7d1 8:d4e5d6b079bc
1 Document: 1 Document: Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE [1]
2 Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard 2 Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard
3 Review type: artart - Last Call review 3 Review type: artart - Last Call review
4 Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson 4 Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson
5 Review Date: 2023-10-@@ 5 Review Date: 2023-10-@@
6 Result: Ready with Issues 6 Result: Ready with Issues
10 Caveat: I'm not familiar with the group comms family of RFCs or the 10 Caveat: I'm not familiar with the group comms family of RFCs or the
11 applications they support, so this review is from an outsider's 11 applications they support, so this review is from an outsider's
12 perspective. 12 perspective.
13 13
14 As such, I am not able to comment on the adequacy of section 4. This 14 As such, I am not able to comment on the adequacy of section 4. This
15 is where the details of the Client and ??? interactions are spelled 15 is where the details of the Client and KDC interactions are spelled
16 out, and it needs a potential user of this spec. to judge whether they 16 out, and it needs a potential user of this spec. to judge whether they
17 provide the necessary functionality. 17 provide the necessary functionality.
18 18
19 *Substantive points* 19 *Substantive points*
20 20
42 42
43 *Minor points* 43 *Minor points*
44 44
45 Section 1. I note that one of the two referenced examples of candidate 45 Section 1. I note that one of the two referenced examples of candidate
46 application profiles, "A publish-subscribe architecture for the 46 application profiles, "A publish-subscribe architecture for the
47 Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)" [1], has expired. I'm not 47 Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)" [2], has expired. I'm not
48 sure how much it matters to have reasonably mature examples, but 48 sure how much it matters to have reasonably mature examples, but
49 without _some_ good reasons to suppose that there's a community out 49 without _some_ good reasons to suppose that there's a community out
50 there waiting to implement this framework, its future does seem a bit 50 there waiting to implement this framework, its future does seem a bit
51 shaky... There is of course a chicken-and-egg problem here which may 51 shaky... There is of course a chicken-and-egg problem here which may
52 explain the lack of progress. 52 explain the lack of progress.
63 roles. Although there is a parenthetical reference to the [Vv]erifier 63 roles. Although there is a parenthetical reference to the [Vv]erifier
64 role in Section 3.3.1, no other mention of Monitor is given, and in 64 role in Section 3.3.1, no other mention of Monitor is given, and in
65 general the role of roles is not explained anywhere. There is a 65 general the role of roles is not explained anywhere. There is a
66 "Request inconsistent with the current roles" error code defined in 66 "Request inconsistent with the current roles" error code defined in
67 section 9, but no tabulation of roles allowed/required for particular 67 section 9, but no tabulation of roles allowed/required for particular
68 requests, which one might expect. 68 requests, which one might expect. Nor are any REQ or OPT obligations
69 provided to cover this.
69 70
70 If all this is something defined in one of the many referenced specs, 71 If all this is something defined in one of the many referenced specs,
71 and so familiar to likely readers, that's OK, otherwise perhaps 72 and so familiar to likely readers, that's OK, otherwise perhaps
72 something should be added. 73 something should be added.
74
75 Sections 11.6--11.16: _Seven_ new IANA registries! At a quick count,
76 that's a 50% increase in the number of related (CBOR + COAP)
77 registries. Is there a plan for populating the expert reviewer slots
78 this entails?
73 79
74 *Nits* 80 *Nits*
75 81
76 Section 1 / Appendix A: The use of REQ[n] and OPT[n] in conjunction 82 Section 1 / Appendix A: The use of REQ[n] and OPT[n] in conjunction
77 with REQUIRED and MAY is not explained, nor are they linked to the 83 with REQUIRED and MAY is not explained, nor are they linked to the
88 trasferring -> transferring 94 trasferring -> transferring
89 95
90 ht 96 ht
91 -- 97 --
92 98
93 [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-12 99 [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm/
100 [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-12