[Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 29 October 2019 06:07 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ace@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E12301200B6; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession@ietf.org, ace-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, ace@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.108.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <157232923891.16185.1675206642162092837.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 23:07:18 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/BKSaKUmVG2pxTAW1zNdr_fnlHqY>
Subject: [Ace] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 06:07:19 -0000

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-cwt-proof-of-possession-09: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thanks for the work everyone put into defining this mechanism. I have one
very minor comment that the authors may wish to take into account.


>     /alg/ 3 : /HMAC256//256/ 5,

This use of "//" seems problematic, given RFC 8610's vague reservation of this
sequence for some kind of "comment to end of line" designation:

   (There are currently no end-of-line comments.  If we want to add
   them, "//" sounds like a reasonable delimiter given that we already
   use slashes for comments, but we could also go, for example,
   for "#".)

Given the potential ambiguity introduced by RFC 8610, perhaps
consider some other syntax here instead of "//".