# HG changeset patch # User Henry S. Thompson # Date 1698770480 0 # Node ID ac8f4ba48e08082b6c34d5b71157f850fc63e1fc # Parent b281db30442844e83d8ee04eb34e0b54e525207a ready to submit diff -r b281db304428 -r ac8f4ba48e08 ace-key-groupcomm-review.txt --- a/ace-key-groupcomm-review.txt Fri Oct 27 17:28:37 2023 +0100 +++ b/ace-key-groupcomm-review.txt Tue Oct 31 16:41:20 2023 +0000 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -Document: +Document: Key Provisioning for Group Communication using ACE [1] Intended RFC status: Proposed Standard Review type: artart - Last Call review Reviewer: Henry S. Thompson @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ perspective. As such, I am not able to comment on the adequacy of section 4. This -is where the details of the Client and ??? interactions are spelled +is where the details of the Client and KDC interactions are spelled out, and it needs a potential user of this spec. to judge whether they provide the necessary functionality. @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Section 1. I note that one of the two referenced examples of candidate application profiles, "A publish-subscribe architecture for the -Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)" [1], has expired. I'm not +Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)" [2], has expired. I'm not sure how much it matters to have reasonably mature examples, but without _some_ good reasons to suppose that there's a community out there waiting to implement this framework, its future does seem a bit @@ -65,12 +65,18 @@ general the role of roles is not explained anywhere. There is a "Request inconsistent with the current roles" error code defined in section 9, but no tabulation of roles allowed/required for particular -requests, which one might expect. +requests, which one might expect. Nor are any REQ or OPT obligations +provided to cover this. If all this is something defined in one of the many referenced specs, and so familiar to likely readers, that's OK, otherwise perhaps something should be added. +Sections 11.6--11.16: _Seven_ new IANA registries! At a quick count, +that's a 50% increase in the number of related (CBOR + COAP) +registries. Is there a plan for populating the expert reviewer slots +this entails? + *Nits* Section 1 / Appendix A: The use of REQ[n] and OPT[n] in conjunction @@ -90,4 +96,5 @@ ht -- -[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-12 +[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm/ +[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-coap-pubsub-12