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

[Stefanie Gerdes <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

Thank you for your comments, and sorry for the late reply. We addressed
most of the issues in the latest version, but I have one comment (see
below).

On 3/25/21 5:28 AM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote:
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: No Objection
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In Section 3.2.2, first paragraph, why is that only a SHOULD?  What's a
> situation in which I might do something else?  Same for the one in the second
> paragraph of Section 3.4.

I agree that the phrasing in 3.2.2 is a bit odd. We rephrased that sentence.

In section 3.4, I guess you refer to the sentence "New access tokens
issued by the authorization server SHOULD replace previously issued
access tokens for the respective client." The reason for this phrasing
is that while we recommend that the RS only has a single access token
per client, it is not forbidden to have several (see also section 5.10.1
of draft-ace-oauth-authz). Applications may, e.g., decide to let the AS
add new permissions to the existing ones.

> 
> In the last paragraph of Section 3.3.1, "additionally" doesn't need to appear
> twice.

Okay, fixed.

Thank you for your time,
Steffi