Re: [Ace] Shepherd review of draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification

[Marco Tiloca <[e-mail]>]

Hi Göran,

Thanks a lot!

Regarding point 21 on the Expert Review Instructions, I think it would 
read better if bullet 4 was merged into bullet 2 altogether.

I have made a proposal as a PR at [1]. Please have a look.

Best,
/Marco

[1] https://github.com/ace-wg/ace-revoked-token-notification/pull/2

On 2023-06-02 13:58, Göran Selander wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here is my shepherd review of draft-ietf-ace-revoked-token-notification.
>
> 1. The working group consensus represents a strong concurrence of 7+ 
> individuals with others being silent.
>
> 2-3. No controversy / discontent regarding particular points has been 
> recorded.
>
> 4.  There is an existing implementation by Marco Rasori, CNR:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/marco-rasori-iit/ace-java/src/ucs/ 
> <https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbitbucket.org%2Fmarco-rasori-iit%2Face-java%2Fsrc%2Fucs%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cmarco.tiloca%40ri.se%7C3e72876fc6c4467a185408db6360cb5a%7C5a9809cf0bcb413a838a09ecc40cc9e8%7C0%7C0%7C638213039606562556%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=uxc6sPqTlxC1JWI%2FN504UYJpal6EA5LA4vWzLtY1uJQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
> 5. The contents relate to the constrained RESTful cluster of work 
> which covers several working groups, but is essentially a "leaf-draft" 
> which provides a feature for the ACE framework.
>
> 6. MIB and YANG seems not relevant. Media type and CoAP content-format 
> review criteria are met.
>
> 7. The document does not contain YANG
>
> 8. No formal review tools have been used. Two simple examples of CDDL 
> are included.
>
> 9. The draft is ready for AD review
>
> 10. No areas have identified any issues, area reviews still to come
>
> 11. The draft aims to be Proposed Standard, which is the proper type 
> of RFC for this kind of protocol.
>
> The datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent.
>
> 12. None of the authors of the current version (-05) are aware of any 
> IPR that affects this draft. (Question asked by ACE chair earlier this 
> year.)
>
> 13. All authors of the current version (-05) are willing to be listed 
> as an author. (Question asked by ACE chair earlier this year.)
>
> 14. No remaining nits were found.
>
> 15. Normative and Informative References seems to be correctly attributed.
>
> 16. All normative references are freely available to anyone.
>
> 17. No normative downward references. All normative references are 
> either BCP, Proposed Standard or Internet Standard.
>
> 18. No normative references to documents that are not ready to be 
> submitted to the IESG for publication or otherwise in unclear state.
>
> 19. Publication of this document will not change the status of any 
> existing RFCs.
>
> 20. IANA considerations
>
> The required IANA assignments are complete and appropriate. The IANA 
> considerations contain two registrations:
>
> - media type for messages defined in this protocol and
>
> - the associated CoAP content format.
>
> and two new registries, listed in the next point.
>
> The required IANA assignments are associated with the appropriate 
> reservations in IANA registries. The referenced IANA registries have 
> been clearly identified. Each newly created IANA registry specifies 
> initial contents,
>
> allocations procedures, and have a reasonable name .
>
> 21. The following new IANA registries are requested:
>
> - ACE Token Revocation List Parameters
>
> - ACE Token Revocation List Errors
>
> The instructions to the Designated Expert are clear, but there are 
> seem to be duplicate instructions in bullets 2 and 4:
>
> - 'Specifications are needed for the "Expert Review" range if they are 
> expected to be used outside of closed environments in an interoperable 
> way. *When specifications are not provided, the description provided 
> needs to have sufficient information to identify what the point is 
> being used for.*'
>
> - *‘When specifications are not provided for a request where "Expert 
> Review" is the assignment policy, the description provided needs to 
> have sufficient information to verify the code points above*.'
>
> Some of the authors should be request to be designated experts.
>
> In summary, with possible exception for the duplicate instructions 
> mentioned in item 21, the document is ready to progress.
>
> Göran
>

-- 
Marco Tiloca
Ph.D., Senior Researcher

Phone: [phone]

RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB
Box 1263
164 29 Kista (Sweden)

Division: Digital Systems
Department: Computer Science
Unit: Cybersecurity

https://www.ri.se