Re: [Ace] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Olaf for your replies and the suggested text changes. I really appreciate it :)

Regards

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Olaf Bergmann <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, 10 May 2021 at 15:12
To: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: (with COMMENT)

    Hi Éric,

    sorry for the delayed reply. Please find our comments inline.

    Grüße
    Olaf


    On 2021-03-23, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:

    > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
    > draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: 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:
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize/
    >
    >
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > COMMENT:
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > Thank you for the work put into this document.
    >
    > Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
    > appreciated), and some nits.
    >
    > I hope that this helps to improve the document,
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > -éric
    >
    > == COMMENTS ==
    >
    > Is there any reason to use DTLS 1.2 while the document DTLS 1.3 is on
    > the same
    > IESG telechat ? I understand that they are from different WG but this
    > may not
    > be the most efficient to specify a protocol using DTLS.

    At some point, the WG has decided to pursue standardization for DTLS 1.2
    first and specify the use over DTLS 1.3 later in a separate
    document. The reason is that DTLS 1.2 has been widely deployed in
    current lightweight DTLS libraries that are available in current IoT
    platforms. In general, this specification would also apply to DTLS
    1.3. Do you think that we should clarify this in the introduction? For
    example:

    OLD:

      In this profile, a client and a resource server use CoAP {{RFC7252}}
      over DTLS version 1.2 {{RFC6347}} to communicate.

    NEW:

      In this profile, a client and a resource server use CoAP {{RFC7252}}
      over DTLS version 1.2 {{RFC6347}} to communicate. This specification
      uses DTLS 1.2 terminology but later versions such as DTLS 1.3 can
      be used instead.

    > -- Section 3.1 --
    > Has the "resource owner (RO)" been defined earlier ?

    The ACE framework uses terminology from OAuth 2.0, including the
    resource owner. The DTLS profile uses ACE framework terminology (see
    section 2). Does that suffice?

    > -- Section 3.2.2 --
    > The wrong selection of RPK recovery is unclear to me. What happens if the
    > client does not have the right public key ?

    The client may try to re-request the access token. If this fails, the
    client should re-register with the AS. We added text to section 3.2.2 to
    clarify this situation.

    > == NITS ==
    >
    > Sometimes it is "Raw Public Keys", or "RPK" or "RawPublicKey"... Is it on
    > purpose to use 3 different writings for possibly the same concept?

    fixed: replaced rawpublickey with Raw Public Key