[Ace] Review of draft-seitz-ace-usecases-01

Likepeng <likepeng@huawei.com> Mon, 25 August 2014 07:07 UTC

From: Likepeng <likepeng@huawei.com>
To: "ace@ietf.org" <ace@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-seitz-ace-usecases-01
Thread-Index: Ac/AMwjLqbd6ZDFDQVizyfBoASMU7g==
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:06:04 +0000
Message-ID: <34966E97BE8AD64EAE9D3D6E4DEE36F258186500@SZXEMA501-MBS.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_34966E97BE8AD64EAE9D3D6E4DEE36F258186500SZXEMA501MBSchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/3-DWrYd2qoviZonpaHrvw6HplTs
Subject: [Ace] Review of draft-seitz-ace-usecases-01
Precedence: list

Hello all,

Here are my personal review comments for draft-seitz-ace-usecases-01.

Overall, it is a very good document.

General comments:

1.      It is better to change the document title to "use cases and requirements" because requirements are derived from use cases and even more important than use cases.

2.      For each use case, it is better to specify the roles, e.g. who is Client, Resource Server, Resource Owner.

3.      There are some useful contents in draft-seitz-ace-problem-description-01 and draft-seitz-ace-design-considerations-00. Maybe we can take some contents into the use case draft.

Detailed comments:
2.1.2: It is better to use "Client", "Resource Server", "Resource Owner" instead of "fruit vendor", "transport company", "delivery service" in the requirements.

2.2.2: It is better to use "Client", "Resource Server", "Resource Owner" instead of "Jane", "Jeffrey" in the requirements.

2.4.2: Requirement U4.7, this seems to be the interaction between Resource Owner and Authorization Server, should this be out of scope?

3.3: U5.2 talks about offline scenario, but this requirement is not mentioned in section 3.3.

Thanks,

Kind Regards
Kepeng

[Ace] Review of draft-seitz-ace-usecases-01 Likepeng