Re: [CDNi] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-cdni-https-delegation-subcerts

Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 08 April 2024 04:48 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMrHYE33khUEHLkDXOvf+y-3wxrXDcBHFnU=+fr7D-g20=ZD4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMrHYE0BYYovbk1afNrgzOf-9zCBFRZbT9Fb9k78qHtkNvfzrQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrHYE0BYYovbk1afNrgzOf-9zCBFRZbT9Fb9k78qHtkNvfzrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:47:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMrHYE2TD311SVAGNiUmww1Wqfbfc7AVmn7XfMvYtq-kEGiWvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<cdni@ietf.org>" <cdni@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007f6a8e06158e8247"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cdni/iIKfmcd0H4Hhiv0LsaQC64pmV2c>
Subject: Re: [CDNi] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-cdni-https-delegation-subcerts
Precedence: list

Authors,

  (As Shepherd) A few final nits:
  - I don't see the purpose of the RFC8007 reference.  If you agree, could
you please remove it?
  - general: we say the number of delegated certs "supported".  is it
really "supported"  or more simply "requested"?
  - section 3: first use of "MI" should be: "Metadata interface (MI)"
  - section 3: "can provide corresponding" -> "can provide the
corresponding"
  - section 3.1: "is typically (but not necessarily) corresponding to" ->
"typically (but not necessarily) corresponds to"
  - section 4: can we add a reference for CertificateVerify
(i.e., [RFC8446] Section 4.4.3)?
  - section 4: "Metadata Interface" -> "MI"
  - section 4: "MUST rely on" -> "MUST use" ?
  - section 5, bullet 2: "Note, that" -> "Note that"
  - section 5, bullet 3: "Footprint & Capabilities Advertisement interface"
-> "FCI"
  - section 5, bullet 3: "to inform on the" -> "to advertise"
  - section 5, bullet 4: "Metadata interface" -> "MI"
  - section 5, bullet 4: remove "therefore"
  - section 6.2: remove "(and any associated capability advertisement)"
  - section 7: "The FCI and MI" -> "The MI"  --  technically, FCI transfer
is not via RFC8006.  the only FCI transport is alto, via RFC9241.

thanx!

--  Kevin J. Ma


On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 11:30 PM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>   Having heard no objections, the WGLC is closed and we will proceed with
> submitting the draft to the IESG.
>
> thanx.
>
> --  Kevin, Sanjay, and Chris
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 12:13 AM Kevin Ma <kevin.j.ma.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>>   As the secdir pre-review has been cleared (many thanks to Mike
>> Ounsworth for his help in reviewing the draft), this is the official
>> Working Group Last Call for the subcerts delegation draft.  If you have any
>> questions, comments, or concerns, please respond to this thread.
>>
>>   The latest version of the draft can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-https-delegation-subcerts/
>>
>>   The WGLC will stay open for two weeks and close on March 24, 2024.  If
>> no objections or major issues are raised between now and then, we will
>> proceed to submit the draft to the IESG.
>>
>> thanx!
>>
>> --  Kevin and Sanjay
>>
>

[CDNi] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-cdn… Kevin Ma
Re: [CDNi] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf… Kevin Ma
Re: [CDNi] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf… Kevin Ma