Ballot for draft-ietf-suit-update-management
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Summary: Needs 8 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
Hi Authors, WG, # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-suit-update-management-12 # Thank you for the work on this document. The SUIT technology is outside my traditional technology area of expertise. I hope my observations are helpful to consider with this document: * RFC9019 is currently informative, but Section 2 says the draft “makes use of terminology defined in [RFC9019]”. If the terminology is required to understand or implement the specification, this should be normative. Note that RFC 9019 is Informational, so making it normative from a Standards Track document would create a downward normative reference that needs to be called out and processed. RFC 9019 is explicitly Informational. * [I-D.ietf-suit-information-model] should be replaced with RFC 9124. The information model has been published as RFC 9124, and the current draft still references the old Internet-Draft version from 2021. RFC 9124 contains the requirements and terminology for the manifest information model. * One IANA nit: Section 6 says IANA is requested to allocate “commands, parameters, and metadata values.” Since the document also requests an Envelope Element, Manifest Elements, and Component Text Values, it may be clearer to say “the following SUIT registry values” rather than “commands, parameters, and metadata values.” Kind Regards, Gunter Van de Velde Routing Area Director