Re: [Ace] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Cigdem Sengul <[e-mail]>]

Hello Francesca,

Thank you for your feedback. My response is below.

On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 10:03, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: Discuss
>
> 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-mqtt-tls-profile/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Updating my ballot after reviewing draft-ietf-ace-aif-06. Just want to make
> sure we don't miss anything, please feel free to correct me if I missed the
> mark here.
>
> FP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-aif-06#section-4
> states:
>
> default values are the values "URI-local-
>    part" for Toid and "REST-method-set" for Tperm, as per Section 3 of
>    the present specification.
>
>    A specification that wants to use Generic AIF with different Toid
>    and/or Tperm is expected to request these as media type parameters
>    (Section 5.2) and register a corresponding Content-Format
>    (Section 5.3).
>
> FP: I wonder if this document should define a new media type parameter for
> Tperm (as REST-method-set is not appropriate for "pub"/"sub" value) and
> register a corresponding Content-Format as indicated in the paragraph
> above.
> CC'ing Carsten for his opinion.
>

CS: Since we considered this for the Broker's consumption using MQTT,
registration of a new media type looks like it was overlooked.
I assume you are raising this issue as the client may use the scope for
token requests using application/ace+json(cbor) application/aif+json(cbor)
If that is the case, I suggest the following text for AIF and  MQTT
Permissions registry (with Expert Review registration procedure) similar to
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/ -

AIF

   For the media-types application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json
   defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-aif], IANA is requested to
   register the following entries for the two media-type parameters Toid
   and Tperm, in the respective sub-registry defined in Section 5.2 of
   [I-D.ietf-ace-aif] within the "MIME Media Type Sub-Parameter"
   registry group.

   *  Name: mqtt-topic-filter

   *  Description/Specification: topic filter used in MQTT

   *  Reference: [[This document]]

   *  Name: mqtt-permissions

   *  Description/Specification: permissions for MQTT client.

   *  Reference: [[This document]]

  MQTT Permissions

   This document establishes the IANA "MQTT Permissions" registry.
   The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration
   procedure [RFC8126].

   This registry includes the possible permissions of MQTT clients
when communicating
   with an MQTT broker.

   The columns of this registry are:

   *  Name: A value that can be used in documents for easier
      comprehension, to identify a possible permissions of MQTT clients.

   *  Description: This field contains a brief description of the permission.

   *  Reference: This contains a pointer to the public specification for
      the permission.

   This registry will be initially populated by the names "pub", "sub".

   The Reference column for all of these entries will be [[This
   document]].


Are there any other registries involved?
Thanks,


>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work on this document
>
> Many thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ART ART review:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/REdbeKR0FBJ1CnVtKOUaJnaeONk/,
> and to
> the authors for addressing it.
>
> Only two minor comments easy to fix, see below.
>
> Francesca
>
> 1. -----
>
> FP: Please replace references to RFC7230 with
> draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19
> which will obsolete it once published. Note that
> draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 is already with the RFC Editor so will not
> delay publication of your document.
>
> 2. -----
>
> Section 7.3
>
> FP: I believe this profile should be registered in the Standards track
> portion
> of the registry - please add a note about it so that IANA is aware,
> changing
> for example:
>
> OLD:
> *  CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA
> NEW:
> *  CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA in the (-256, 255) range
>
>
>
>