Re: [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15
Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sengul@gmail.com> Sat, 05 March 2022 13:40 UTC
Return-Path: <cigdem.sengul@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C75A3A139E; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 05:40:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F3SrE97SLoyv; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 05:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 184443A139D; Sat, 5 Mar 2022 05:40:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2d.google.com with SMTP id j128so250328vsc.9; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 05:40:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9/Df0zQsa/Dtle1dTal8cMJj/wr4/QZk7MylB9spFRI=; b=iMu9CBfWvC8NJTLO4HaScZ0YYPV3brx/aRrg6CzBsGXYOOCMnSZXJr+Xd2YpUVl+zD ZgltjCtTFATGJwppVxk/N/5xoaABAWSC0GzdE4NHcJ01dxbVo3H1/jinQf4gz+BIKi6N p0IewtnkI9VfZDnWYdutKutI9JNxvRsgwPyre2VlrFKn5gOOHjdycilNLDOX9VCSJe4q 639EGq634jrbpNG7roopLMis0M57CF011gBbzfaqWMwYg05dYLosFDhtGxtpflqRC1gz WARNofJ/ylaflu+EBF43wgxkvLBk/VAULbHkqydy7sYkWc5wbUY9ftcBBAzGb0FteM3A NC+A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9/Df0zQsa/Dtle1dTal8cMJj/wr4/QZk7MylB9spFRI=; b=0ZiXYm5kXJ8pT5RuUcav4mJlgK/1ltA7WfFOljsJt+kFIHKOj3RhGW2RAJ5KN4n/Ic zFtgwP5jt4V14hofg6bWZUwv58i0bdNV/92/MQBf71dP35YgBLyZvy6OIqDP9bOh8wXl 0W5cf3syrbn8PADPSwZ5atQWPv/TtQZPFTh0+GncYTh0ZgiyvtWnHkuH2o7cRjAWXcOT z8a4bNM0KhLlHMdW4bHv8HDL//uYmBkHtwWOUkbeRsOWoyUJFceRUMetZtmZq4a/gUe3 X4iz2oSQ1DmTrYPWAjf2KHex3HD04rm2OLnliyCetaLvaJjVSrw64gW5O+RZ0iidmLXn ZjNg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532cqrRlyJPtjPKH6owk7IyM/3HKdEa5ZDOObXuX3ZFeiToe1zg3 WnPFXqlOZSxTRSMscHBhe0cY0JSHh67t+NQVguESz8rABRs=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqHcj7zSRwVyc5OIBmZtlmF8Y0+XaTtI7iPsbDboEnl4byezjWnjJqtyy7rvkr+mB1BLVSRtrEA7nmCupgta8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:dd0:b0:31e:ae36:24b8 with SMTP id e16-20020a0561020dd000b0031eae3624b8mr1100442vst.24.1646487611874; Sat, 05 Mar 2022 05:40:11 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <164625142349.18034.6160062151802397570@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAA7SwCPcLsw_fSShi8z924w9fmWkKSyjM55y8rznc8V8rOeeiQ@mail.gmail.com> <c7cb09c0-ccd2-1c16-c1ee-1e39608ace95@tenghardt.net> <20220305024659.GG22457@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20220305024659.GG22457@mit.edu>
From: Cigdem Sengul <cigdem.sengul@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 13:40:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CAA7SwCOLSuix6b7PweWhZemJvDFyjcpZk22L+Ezv+V6yZZyQQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Theresa Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>, gen-art@ietf.org, Ace Wg <ace@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003ba28b05d978c5a3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/gBaTyZdFhXaEdC5vBDLYrWDbqc4>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Sat, 05 Mar 2022 13:40:17 -0000
Hello, I've created a new pull request for the changes: https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt-tls-profile/pull/101 Explanations are below. > > > > > [CS: Introduced a formal definition of Network Connection to > > > MQTT-related terminology - as defined in MQTT standard. > > > To the Will definition, added the situations when the connection is > > > considered not to have closed normally. > > > Question: Normal disconnection is DISCONNECT with reason code is 0x00, > > > according to MQTT standard - is this definition also needed?" > > > > [TE] So "not closed normally" means any way to terminate the Network > > Connection, other than DISCONNECT with reason code 0x00? If so, I think > > this would be a good addition to the definition, either as its own > > definition or added to the "Will" definition. > > I think that's right, but Cigdem knows MQTT better than me and she should > confirm. > [CS: Yes, added the DISCONNECT packet definition. I also took the MQTT standard text to specify more formally situations for sending a Will, which included a definition for normal disconnection. I reduced the Will-specific text in the main document, as this definition now is comprehensive.] > > > > > > > > > Section 2.1 > > > > > > [CS: Added for cnf: > > > > > > > rs_cnf: > > > > > [TE] These explanations already help, thanks! However, and this might > > just be me, but I keep wondering what 'cnf' stands for, i.e., if it is > > an acronym for something, and if it is, if it makes sense to expand the > > acronym. But it might just be a string that comes from "somewhere", > > which is fine with me, too. :) > > I think the lineage of "cnf" can be traced back to at least RFC 7800, so at > this point it's probably a fairly well established part of the greater > OAuth ecosystem. > > Which is not to say that we can't try to make the document more accessible > to new readers, of course. The ACE framework itself relies pretty heavily > on proof of possession semantics for JWT/CWT tokens, so perhaps the > implicit reliance on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz and its terminology would > suffice. Happy to hear further thoughts. > [CS: Added --> 'cnf' (confirmation) claim in its first instance. We are referencing the params document as well for both confirmation related claims (cnf, rs_cnf). Would this be enough?] Kind regards, --Cigdem > > -Ben >
- [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-ace-m… Theresa Enghardt via Datatracker
- Re: [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-a… Cigdem Sengul
- Re: [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-a… Theresa Enghardt
- Re: [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-a… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-a… Cigdem Sengul
- Re: [Ace] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of dr… Lars Eggert
- Re: [Ace] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-a… Reese Enghardt