Re: [Ace] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

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]<mailto:[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