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. I welcome these suggestions - I do not foresee other permission
keywords looking at the MQTT vocabulary (control packets); happy to
"hard-code" "pub" and "sub".
If there aren't any other opinions, I will implement them this way.
There are a  few other minor clarifications I am waiting for feedback, and
with those clarified, I will be ready to publish a new ID.

Kind regards,
--Cigdem



On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 12:35, Francesca Palombini <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Cigdem,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the quick reply!
>
> The two additional registrations for the parameters Toid and Tperm look
> good, although I have a couple of suggestions:
>
>    1. For Toid I would add a reference to Section 1.3 (and maybe
>    capitalize Topic Filter, just to be nitpicking). I would also mention that
>    this is ancoded ass a text string (or point to section 2.3).
>    2. For Tperm, I don’t think it is needed to create an additional
>    registry, unless you foresee that there might be need to add new methods
>    other than “pub” and “sub” in the future, in which case I agree with you
>    that the IANA registry is the best choice. If you don’t, I would remove the
>    new registry and just mention that the Tperm is a text string with value
>    either “pub” or “sub”, and reference section 2.3.
>
> I think that should cover it. Again, Carsten’s opinion is welcome as the
> creator of the registry (lacking the Designated expert that is not yet
> assigned).
>
>
>
>
>
> Francesca
>
>
>
> *From: *Cigdem Sengul <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 12:57
> *To: *Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, [e-mail] <
> [e-mail]>, Ace Wg <[e-mail]>, Daniel Migault <
> [e-mail]>, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Francesca Palombini's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
>
> 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
>
>
>