[Ace] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification-08: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the work done on this document and thanks as well to Niklas Widell
for his IoT directorate review
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification-08-iotdir-telechat-widell-2024-07-04/)
may I suggest to the authors to reply to Niklas' comments ?

Just a nit on this I-D: the text often uses Capitalisation, which is probably
not required and is just an eye distraction (e.g., "Client" or "Server") and as
noted by Niklas, some acronyms are introduced several times and/or never used.

As a side note, I am unsure whether the whole section 3.1 is useful as it seems
to repeat what is specified in other documents.

Also, unsure whether using CBOR only on the TRL when the actual tokens can be
CBOR or JSON is a simplification for the RS.

In section 6, is there a specification of an "administrator" in `If the
requester is an administrator` ?

Kudos for using SVG graphics ;-)