Transfer dIGital cREdentialS Securely
charter-ietf-tigress-01

[Ballot comment]
is it possible to be specific about the "share"? like what are we sharing? It is clear that we are transfering credential but "initiate a share" is not that clear.

[Ballot comment]
# GEN AD review of charter-ietf-tigress-06

CC @larseggert

## Comments

### Paragraph 1
```
  The WG charter includes the definition and standardization of a protocol that
```
Since this *is* the WG charter, this text reads a bit odd.

### Paragraph 1
```
  Privacy goals include:
```
The text below talks about "share" when the text above talked about "transfer". Suggest to align the terminology.

## Nits

All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to
address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there
will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you
did with these suggestions.

### Typos

#### Paragraph 5
```
- * Aside from potentially the IP address, the relay server should not learn the
+ * Aside from network-level metadata, the relay server should not learn information about the
```

#### Paragraph 9
```
- * Ensure the sender has intent to share (proof of the fact that the share
+ * Ensure the sender has the intent to share (proof of the fact that the share
+                        ++++
```

### Grammar/style

#### Paragraph 0
```
nd or a family member. A private home owner may want to provide access to th
                                ^^^^^^^^^^
```
This noun normally spelled as one word.

#### Paragraph 24
```
form the credential transfer in a secure manner. The protocol will use appro
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
```
Consider replacing this phrase with the adverb "securely" to avoid wordiness.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
[IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool

[Ballot comment]
I agree with other comment as to whether the requirements/constraints on the solution should be listed in the charter.  E.g., presumably this means that if the WG cannot come up with a solution that meets the constraints then it must close or recharter to progress?


Some of the constraints also seem a little odd, or unclear:

* Allow a sender and a recipient to perform multiple round trip communications within a limited time frame
Is the requirement about performing round trip communications, or to be able to complete the transfer in a short bounded time?

* Not require that both the sender and recipient be online at the same time
What is meant by being online?  Is this about having network connectivity to the relay server?

* Support opaque message content based on the credential type
It wasn't clear to me exactly what this is, or why carrying arbitrary opaque data is an absolute requirement?  Is that about carrying some associated message related to why the credential is being delegated?

Rob

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Murray's comment that the second paragraph makes it appear a whole lot like the solution is already decided, now all we have to do is figure out how to back into it. :-(

Other than that, my only other comment is that this is the only time I've ever seen an IETF charter feel the need to disclaim device UI considerations. Surely that goes without saying?

[Ballot comment]
I think the must do things should be part of working group consensus decisions on requirements, and does not need to be part of charter text. The goals seems sufficient to me.

[Ballot comment]
The second paragraph reads like a bunch of decisions have already been made.  I suggest this should be rewritten to specify requirements (if that's appropriate at this stage) rather than enumerating things that appear to be properties of an already preferred solution.

[Ballot comment]
Interesting pieces of work that will be quite useful. Here are some quick comments:

The 1st paragraph is written using "you", I would prefer to read it as the 3rd person.

2nd paragraph, in "Note that neither private keys", the "note that" looks strange in a charter, suggest to replace it by "Note: neither private keys".

The MD format (bullet list) is broken in a couple of places.

It is unclear what "sensitive details of the share" are.

The charter has privacy & security "goals" and "considerations", while I am not a native English speaker, I wonder those 2 words are synonyms. Should 'requirements' be used ?