[COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 11 October 2018 02:27 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: cose-chairs@ietf.org, cose@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153922482678.5791.14299535909398711328.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:27:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cose/9eTTcLBTTl4gU9U0jmdCptZuuGQ>
Subject: [COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-ietf-cose-01-00: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-cose-01-00: No Objection

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.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cose/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Spencer that this probably needs external review. (I don't see a
"can this be approved without external review" question in the ballot, so I
assume that's the intent, anyway.)

Otherwise, I have several mostly editorial comments:

The paragraphs starting with "The SUIT working group..." seem out of place.
These are motivations for work, but they occur after the discussion of work
structure has already started. I propose moving them earlier in the charter.

"1. Should the document be split in two?  One document for the
structures and one document for the algorithm definitions."

The second sentence is a fragment.

"The first set of
three are listed in the deliverables."

There are 5 in the deliverables.

"A re-charter will be required
to expand this list."

Isn't that always true?

"At the time COSE was developed, there was a sense that X.509
certificates was not a feature"

s/was/were

"The need to be able to
identify X.509 certificates is now a feature that needs to be
provided."

That seems awkward. I propose "The ability to identify X.509 certificates now
needs to be provided." Also, is this just a matter of identifying them, or do
they need to be imbedded/included?

[COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter-iet… Ben Campbell
Re: [COSE] Ben Campbell's No Objection on charter… Jim Schaad