Last Call Review of draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-21
review-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-21-genart-lc-housley-2023-08-20-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-21 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | 21 (document currently at 24) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2023-09-08 | |
Requested | 2023-08-07 | |
Requested by | Toerless Eckert | |
Authors | Michael Richardson , Peter Van der Stok , Panos Kampanakis , Esko Dijk | |
I-D last updated | 2023-08-20 | |
Completed reviews |
Iotdir Early review of -21
by Henk Birkholz
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -21 by Russ Housley (diff) Yangdoctors Last Call review of -21 by Xufeng Liu (diff) Secdir Early review of -23 by Kathleen Moriarty (diff) Yangdoctors Early review of -00 by Carl Moberg (diff) Secdir Early review of -11 by Daniel Fox Franke (diff) Genart Early review of -10 by Russ Housley (diff) Iotdir Early review of -12 by Henk Birkholz (diff) |
|
Comments |
Please disregard "early reviews" i sent out half an hour ago, i missed to click on the right type (sorry, no tooling option for me to delete these incorrectly entered review requests). Requesting last-call reviews (given how the document is in WGLC) to help finish up the WGLC of this document and to help convert the not-ready early reviews from earlier to make it easier for following AD/IETF/IESG review. If possible, please assign Gen-ART review to Russ Housley, who did the -10 review earlier If possible, please assign SECDIR review to Daniel Franke, who did the -11 review earlier. If possible, please assign IOTDIR review to Henk Birkholz, who did the -12 review earlier. |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Russ Housley |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/IwdzEEmikojMvwuMWy4cAMymk1k | |
Reviewed revision | 21 (document currently at 24) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2023-08-20 |
review-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-21-genart-lc-housley-2023-08-20-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. For more information, please see the FAQ at <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Document: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-21 Reviewer: Russ Housley Review Date: 2023-08-20 IETF LC End Date: unknown IESG Telechat date: unknown Summary: Almost Ready Note: I did not review Sections 9, 16, 17, and 18. I did not review the Appendices. Major Concerns: Section 6.2 says: "... and MUST NOT distinguish between them." There are many different contexts that one might "distinguish" that are fine. I think you mean that the implementation MUST respond to the two in the same manner. Minor Concerns: Section 4 says: "... certain PKIX operations (such as certificate chain validation)." I do not think that "PKIX operation" has any constructive meaning. This term is used in at least two paragraphs. I suggest that discussing certification path validation and revocation checking would be more helpful to implementers. Section 4 also talks about "PKIX-less operations" in several places. Again, I do not think that this term has any constructive meaning. I suggest that you talk about the use of "raw" public keys. Section 7.3.1 repeats information that is stated other places. It is odd to have a subsection that adds nothing new. Note that this section is referenced from Section 15.4, but Section 6.1.4 also contains the information about EKU requirements. Nits: General: Pick one spelling: CoAPS or coaps. Section 1, para 4: s/optional functions. Appendix E illustrates this./ /optional functions as illustrated in Appendix E./ Section 1, para 5: s/new COSE [RFC9052] signature format/COSE [RFC9052] signature/ Section 1, para 6: s/is to be protected/is protected/ (two places) Section 4, para 4: s/vouchers, only the a new signature/vouchers; however, a signature/ Section 6.1.4, last para: s/have the E/contain the E/ (two places) Section 6.4.1, para 6: s/fail anyway)/fail anyway.)/ Section 8.2, para after the numbered list: s/using less crypto operations/using fewer cryptographic operations/ Section 8.3, para 3: s/ PKIX format certificates/ PKIX certificates/ Section 8.4, para 4: s/arisews/arises/ Section 8.4, para 4: s/idevid-issuer/IDevID-issuer/ Section 15.1, first para s/idevid-issuer/IDevID-issuer/ Please review the output of ID-nits: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-anima-constrained-voucher-21.txt