Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ace-usecases-09

Request Review of draft-ietf-ace-usecases
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2015-10-20
Requested 2015-10-08
Authors Ludwig Seitz , Stefanie Gerdes , Göran Selander , Mehdi Mani , Sandeep Kumar
I-D last updated 2015-10-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -09 by Joel M. Halpern (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -09 by Adam W. Montville (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Mahesh Jethanandani (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Adam W. Montville
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ace-usecases by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 10)
Result Has issues
Completed 2015-10-15

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.
 Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other
last call comments.

Draft is Ready with nits and one possible issue.

This draft seems to provide a good set of use cases collectively representing
the lifecycle of constrained devices up to and including decommissioning.

While the draft does mention “configuration”, the context is more about
ensuring flexibility of expressing access permissions.  I’m not sure if this
draft requires something like the following, but it would be beneficial for
downstream operational processes to explicitly support endpoint posture
assessment.  This could be done by providing an explicit posture-related
interface.  Such a requirement could be alluded to in the Security
Considerations section.  On the other hand, this may be something addressed by
CoAP and other drafts.

Nits (against -09):

Second paragraph of 3.1: You might consider adding a sentence indicating
whether developers are expected to do anything after becoming familiar with

Third paragraph of 3.1: Formatting issue after first sentence - second sentence
is on a new line, or the second sentence was intended to start a new paragraph.

Third paragraph of 3.1: s/attacks/attack/

Fifth paragraph of 3.1: Formatting issue after second sentence - third sentence
is on a new line, or the third sentence was intended to start a new paragraph.

Kind regards,