Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9431 <draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-17> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) the following
questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!--[rfced] To avoid awkward hyphenation, may we update the title as follows?

Original:
Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS profile of Authentication
and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework

Perhaps:
Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) and TLS Profile for the
Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE)
Framework
-->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->


3) <!--[rfced] Please clarify; how does "and setting up the keying material"
relate to the rest of the sentence? Is it a second topic for which
assumptions are made? Or, should "and" be "while"?

Original:
   This document makes the same assumptions as Section 4 of the ACE
   framework [I-D.ietf-ace-oauth-authz] regarding Client and RS
   registration with the AS and setting up the keying material.

Perhaps:
   This document makes the same assumptions as Section 4 of the ACE
   framework [RFC9200] regarding Client and RS registration with the AS
   and regarding the setup of the keying material.
-->


4) <!--[rfced] Should this instance of "JWT token" be updated to read simply as "JWT" to
avoid redundancy (if expanded, "JWT token" would read "JSON Web Token token")?

Original:
  A JWT token uses JOSE, while a CWT token uses COSE
  [RFC8152] for security protection.

Perhaps:
  A JWT uses JOSE, while a CWT token uses COSE
  [RFC8152] for security protection.

Similarly, should "PSK key be updated to "PSK" (if expanded, "PSK key" would read                 
Pre-Shared Key key")?

Original:
   To use TLS 1.3 with pre-shared keys, the Client utilizes the PSK key
   extension specified in [RFC8446] using the key conveyed in the "cnf"
   parameter of the AS response.

Perhaps:
   To use TLS 1.3 with pre-shared keys, the Client utilizes the PSK
   extension specified in [RFC8446] using the key conveyed in the "cnf"
   parameter of the AS response.
-->


5) <!--[rfced] As "confidentiality" is not a term listed in RFC 4949 but "data                    
confidentiality" is listed, we have updated the list below accordingly.
Please let us know if further updates are needed.

Original:
   Certain security-related terms such as "authentication",
   "authorization", "confidentiality", "(data) integrity", "message                               
   authentication code", and "verify" are taken from [RFC4949].

Perhaps:
   Certain security-related terms such as "authentication",
   "authorization", "data confidentiality", "(data) integrity", "message                          
   authentication code", and "verify" are taken from [RFC4949].
-->


6) <!--[rfced] Please clarify; what does "labeled with their topics"
refer to?

Original:
   The Clients are MQTT Clients, which connect to the
   Broker to publish and subscribe to Application Messages, labelled
   with their topics.

Perhaps (if the Clients are labeled):
   The Clients are MQTT Clients, which connect to the
   Broker to publish and subscribe to Application Messages, and are labeled
   with their topics.

Or (if the Application Messages are labeled):
   The Clients are MQTT Clients, which connect to the
   Broker to publish and subscribe to Application Messages (which are
   labeled with their topics).
-->


7) <!--[rfced] Should "Connection" be "Network Connection"?

Original:
  If the Network
  Connection is closed without the Client first sending a
  DISCONNECT packet with Reason Code 0x00 (Normal
  disconnection) and the Connection has a Will Message, the
  Will Message is published.

Perhaps:
  If the Network
  Connection is closed without the Client first sending a
  DISCONNECT packet with reason code 0x00 (Normal
  disconnection) and the Network Connection has a Will Message, the
  Will Message is published.
-->


8) <!--[rfced] Figure 1 has been widened slightly for readability;
please review. Specifically, a single space was added after
(C), (D), (E), and (F), which matches how (A) and (B) appear,
and the second lines of labels were indented. The side-by-side diff
file is here: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431-rfcdiff.html
-->


9) <!--[rfced] Regarding Figure 2, may "Len." be changed to "Len" to match
other instances within this figure, or is this difference intentional?
Also, will it be clear to readers how to read this diagram? Specifically,
the "Authentication Method" and "Authentication Data" portions seem unclear.
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
values for "type" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt)
does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us
know. Also, it is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not
set.

In addition, review each artwork element. Specifically,
should any artwork element be tagged as sourcecode or another
element?
 -->


11) <!--[rfced] As "PINGREQ" is defined in Section 1.3, we have updated
"PINGREQUEST" to "PINGREQ". Please let us know if further updates are needed.

Original:
  The Broker SHOULD check
  for token expiration on receiving a PINGREQUEST.

Current:
  The Broker SHOULD check
  for token expiration on receiving a PINGREQ packet.
-->


12) <!--[rfced] Do you agree with these changes (added 'the', capitalized 'Client'
to match usage within the document)? If so, we will ask IANA to update the
description in the registry (https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-type-sub-parameters/)
accordingly.

Original: Permissions for MQTT client as defined in ...

Current:  Permissions for the MQTT Client as defined in ...
-->


13) <!--[rfced] Please clarify the last part of this sentence; specifically,
what does the "which" clause describe? Is it the transport tokens that
the Broker may need to store until they expire?

Original:
   If the Broker supports the public
   "authz-info" topic, described in Section 2.2.2, then this may be
   vulnerable to a DDoS attack, where many Clients use the "authz-info"
   public topic to transport tokens that are not meant to be used, and
   which the Broker may need to store until the tokens expire.

Perhaps:
   If the Broker supports the public
   "authz-info" topic, described in Section 2.2.2, then this may be
   vulnerable to a DDoS attack, where many Clients use the "authz-info"
   public topic to to transport tokens that are not meant to be used
   and that the Broker may need to store until they expire.
-->


14) <!--[rfced] RFC 7525 has been obsoleted by RFC 9325, and RFC 8152 has been
obsoleted by RFC 9052. May these references be updated accordingly?

RFC 7525 is cited once:
   For TLS 1.2, however, a client
   MUST support TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 for PSKs [RFC8442]
   and TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 for RPKs [RFC8422], as
   recommended in [RFC7525] (and adjusted to be a PSK cipher suite as
   appropriate).

RFC 8152 is cited once:
   A JWT token uses JOSE, while a CWT token uses COSE
   [RFC8152] for security protection.
-->


15) <!-- [rfced] FYI, we have added expansions for the following abbreviations
per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review each
expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.

Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
JSON Web Encryption (JWE)
-->


16) <!--[rfced] We have made the following terminology capitalized for consistency.
Please review this occurrences carefully and let us know if further updates
are necessary.

Will
Will Delay Interval
Will Flag
Will Message
Will Properties
Will Retain
Will Topic
Will QoS
-->


17) <!--[rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to be used inconsistently.

a) We have updated to use the form on the right. Please let us know of any objections.

Control Packet / control packet
Fixed Header / fixed header
password / Password
Payload / payload
username / Username
Variable Header / variable header

b) Please review the terms below and let us know if/how they may be made consistent.

Session vs. session
Subscription vs. subscription
-->


18) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the online
Style Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language>
and let us know if any changes are needed.

Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this should still
be reviewed as a best practice.
-->


Thank you.

RFC Editor/ap/ar


On Jun 19, 2023, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/06/19

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

  Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
  that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
  follows:

  <!-- [rfced] ... -->

  These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

  Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
  coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
  agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

  Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
  change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
  - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
  - contact information
  - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

  Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
  RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
  (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

  Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
  content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
  and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
  <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

  Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
  formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
  reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
  limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

  *  your coauthors

  *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

  *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
     IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
     responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).

  *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
     to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
     list:

    *  More info:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc

    *  The archive itself:
       https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

    *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
       of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
       If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
       have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
       [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
       its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
— OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431.xml
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431.pdf
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431.txt

Diff file of the text:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431-diff.html
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9431.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
  https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9431

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9431 (draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-17)

Title            : Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT)-TLS profile of Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments (ACE) Framework
Author(s)        : C. Sengul, A. Kirby
WG Chair(s)      : Daniel Migault, Loganaden Velvindron
Area Director(s) : Roman Danyliw, Paul Wouters