Last Call Review of draft-ietf-rats-uccs-10
review-ietf-rats-uccs-10-genart-lc-yee-2024-09-25-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-rats-uccs |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2024-09-18 | |
Requested | 2024-09-04 | |
Authors | Henk Birkholz , Jeremy O'Donoghue , Nancy Cam-Winget , Carsten Bormann | |
I-D last updated | 2024-09-25 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -10
by Vincent Roca
Genart Last Call review of -10 by Peter E. Yee Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Per Andersson |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Peter E. Yee |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-rats-uccs by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/3VRG2GGPt-OSQKgaLaqoqo3L8P8 | |
Reviewed revision | 10 | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2024-09-25 |
review-ietf-rats-uccs-10-genart-lc-yee-2024-09-25-00
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 treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-rats-uccs-10 Reviewer: Peter Yee Review Date: 2024-09-25 IETF LC End Date: 2024-09-18 IESG Telechat date: 2024-10-03 Summary: This is a well-written specification for the substitution of a Secure Channel for the COSE envelope normally employed with a CWT Claim Set to protect a CWT, here specified for RATS uses cases. There are some minor issues with the introductory text that might be addressed to clarify the case being made for the transposability of a Secure Channel for COSE envelope. [Ready with issues.] Major issues: None Minor issues: In general, I find the concept of using a Secure Channel in place of a COSE envelope for protecting a CWT reasonable. As the draft notes, once delivered to the receiver, the UCCS is merely unprotected data. Not being overly familiar with RATS, I ask whether there should be a more cautionary note that a true CWT should be employed by the sender instead of a Secure Channel if there is an expectation that it will be sent on to another party by the receiver. Certainly, the last paragraph on page 6 hints at this. On page 5, section 4, 2nd sentence: “leaflets”? Really? Folded pieces of paper. Maybe just change “instruction leaflets” to “instructions”. Nits/editorial comments: Page 4, 1st paragraph in Secure Channel definition after the NIST quotation, last sentence: delete the comma. Page 4, section 2, last (partial) sentence: change “resource constrained” to “resource-constrained”. Page 6, 5th paragraph, 1st sentence: delete “to” after “and”. At least I think it parses better that way. Page 11, section 7.2, 3rd bullet: insert “the” before “IV”.