changeset 8:d4e5d6b079bc default tip

merge
author Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
date Tue, 02 Jul 2024 13:51:47 +0100
parents 328798b2a7d1 (current diff) ac8f4ba48e08 (diff)
children
files
diffstat 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) [+]
line wrap: on
line diff
--- a/ace-key-groupcomm-review.txt	Tue Jul 02 13:47:11 2024 +0100
+++ b/ace-key-groupcomm-review.txt	Tue Jul 02 13:51:47 2024 +0100
@@ -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