Ballot for draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
I support Mike Bishop's DISCUSS on the 302.
I support Mike Bishop's DISCUSS on the use of 302 in section 2.4.1. 202 seems more appropriate.
Thanks for the work done in this document. As discussed with Amaury in my previous DISCUSS ballot email thread https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scitt/L1YX6296X5F0pN0vUyz29dLGdlY/ , the PR was merged, and a revised I-D published, i.e., I have now cleared my DISCUSS ballot.
This document does not spoecify a tranport mechanism, and I have transport review comments. Please find the following (non-blocking) COMMENTS: - There are two sentences that follow one another, and do not read correctly, please consider combining these: "Section 2 of [RFC7515] specifies Base64Url encoding as follows: [RFC7515] specifies Base64url encoding as follows:" Gorry
Thank you for taking the time to address my DISCUSS and COMMENTs.
Hi Henk, Jon, and Antoine, Thank you for the changes made in -10 [1]. These address all comments in my previous ballot [2]. Much appreciated. # I have one minor comment for -10: RFC8792 has this MUST: "7.1. Folded Structure Text content that has been folded as specified by this strategy MUST adhere to the following structure. 7.1.1. Header The header is two lines long. The first line is the following 36-character string; this string MAY be surrounded by any number of printable characters. This first line cannot itself be folded. NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792 " However, many of the snippets with folding in the draft do not have the required surrounding note such as in CURRENT: HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request Content-Type: application/concise-problem-details+cbor { / title / -1: \ "Bad Signature Algorithm", / detail / -2: \ "Signed Statement contained a non supported algorithm" } Cheers, Med [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-09&url2=draft-ietf-scitt-scrapi-10&difftype=--html [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/scitt/aynYWkU1mIR1CD8YF5YHXi7S7jI/
Thank you to Gyan Mishra for the GENART review.
The document has improved since I was WG Chair for this document. I thank all the feedback provided to the authors and the authors hard work for the improvements. Since I was WG Chair during the development up to submission of this document, I recuse.