[Anima] Review comments on draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-09

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Here are my comments on draft-ietf-anima-jws-voucher-09 draft.

Overall the draft is short, and easy to understand. There are a few issues categorized under Overall, Major, Minor, and Nits, in order of importance.

Overall:

Please resolve all the TODOs in the document.

Major:

None.

Minor:

- The document makes the following statement, but it is not clear the purpose of the paragraph. Neither voucher data for CBOR or its signature format, COSE is referenced or discussed in the document. The paragraph should be removed.

[I-D.ietf-anima-constrained-voucher] provides a serialization of the voucher data to CBOR [RFC8949] with the signature format of COSE [RFC8812] and the media type "application/voucher-cose+cbor”.

- The term “Voucher Artifact” is referenced multiple times in the document, sometimes with mixed capitalization. The terminology section has definition for other terms, but not for "Voucher Artifact”. draft-ietf-anima-rfc8366bis, which defines the term does not use any capitalization. 

- draft-kuehlewind-update-tag-04 has expired and archived. Do you want to continue referencing it?

Nit:

Section 3.3

- Am I missing a “\” in backslashes(“). Looks like the backslash got eaten by whatever was rendering the HTML. You might want to escape the backslash.

- This sentence did not parse for me.

"Note, a trust anchor SHOULD be provided differently to be trusted. This is consistent with Section 5.5.2 of [BRSKI].” 

Did you mean to say “SHOULD be provided separately, for it to be trusted”?

Thanks


Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]