Re: [CDNi] AD review of draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-19

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Phil, please go ahead and post version -20 as soon as you can; thanks.

Barry

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 10:09 AM Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi, Phil, and thanks for getting this reply out.
>
> > Let's iterate there and I will submit an updated draft once you are
> > satisfied with the changes.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> > > — Section 2 —
> > >
> > >    HTTP or HTTPS URI [RFC7230] (Section 2.7).
> > >
> > > This is a quirk of the tools and not a fault in the draft, but this
> > > results in the html version having a clickable link to RFC 7230, and then
> > > another clickable link to Section 2.7 of this document (which, of course,
> > > isn’t there).  I think if you change this to “HTTP or HTTPS URI (see
> > > [RFC7230] Section 2.7)” the generated link will work better.
> >
> > I made this change but not sure if it had the intended effect. Please
> > confirm.
>
> It's a small thing, so let's not sweat it, but I can't check it until
> the new draft is posted and HTML-ized.  Let's assume it'll have the
> intended effect, and if it doesn't we'll let the RFC Editor deal with
> it.
>
> > > — Section 2.1.15 —
> > >
> > >    The URI Container (cdniuc) claim takes one of the following forms
> > >
> > > This is the only claim definition that doesn’t say “[optional]”.  Should
> > > it?
> > >
> >
> > I see it as optional in the latest published version of the draft already.
> > Was there another claim you were meaning instead?
>
> No, this was my mis-reading: cdniuc is actually defined in 2.1.11, and
> it is labelled correctly there.  It's not labelled as "[optional]"
> here in 2.1.15, but it shouldn't be.  Never mind.
>
> > > — Section 6.7 —
> > > Thanks for including advice to the experts.
> > >
> > >    Expert Reviewers should be empowered to pass judgements
> > >    as they see fit
> > >
> > > This is very vague and, to me, implies more capriciousness than I think
> > > you really intend.  Can you come up with another way to word this that
> > > gives a bit more guidance?  What sorts of judgments are they likely to make?
> > >
> >
> > This one I agree with you on, but I struggled in adding it. I made some
> > changes, but more guidance is welcome.
>
> Let's call this one resolved also; thanks.
>
> So I think your updated version should be ready to post as -20.  Please do!
>
> Barry