[Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-10
Reese Enghardt via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 09 September 2024 23:30 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from [10.244.2.118] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09826C1840EB; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 16:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Reese Enghardt via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.23.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <172592463661.2713180.15649778041521386900@dt-datatracker-68b7b78cf9-q8rsp>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2024 16:30:36 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: 3WGOPFO7OPDJPSBF43G6VNZZBA25NQN7
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3WGOPFO7OPDJPSBF43G6VNZZBA25NQN7
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-gen-art.ietf.org-0; header-match-gen-art.ietf.org-1; header-match-gen-art.ietf.org-2; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth.all@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Reese Enghardt <ietf@tenghardt.net>
Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-10
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/DI5b7yhHiVWHYIU6rUDbitjunHA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:gen-art-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gen-art-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gen-art-leave@ietf.org>
Reviewer: Reese Enghardt Review result: Ready with Nits I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-httpbis-unprompted-auth-10 Reviewer: Reese Enghardt Review Date: 2024-09-09 IETF LC End Date: 2024-09-11 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: The document is fairly clear and concise. I have a few suggestions to make the document more accessible. Major issues: None. Minor issues: Section 1: "Members of less well-defined communities might use more ephemeral keys to acquire access to geography- or capability-specific resources, as issued by an entity whose user base is larger than the available resources can support (by having that entity metering the availability of keys temporally or geographically)." Does this sentence introduce a new use case that is separate from the company use case described in the previous sentence, or is it a similar use case but under different circumstances? It is not quite clear to me what a "member of a less well-defined community" is, I assume "less well-defined than employees of a company"? Are users within a certain geography or with devices with specific capabilities an example? What does "larger than the available resources can support" mean here, is this part tied to the new use case or circumstances described before? Please consider rephrasing this sentence to make it clearer. Section 2: As a non-expert, I would appreciate a high-level description of the entire flow here. The client generates the data to be signed and then sends the signature, and the details are in Sections 3 and 4, but what happens afterwards? Please consider adding one or two sentences to explain the basic principle of how the scheme works, i.e., how the server is then able to authenticate the client. Section 5: As this section is titled "Example", I expected a full example of the scheme, but it looks like this is just an example of a request. Please consider turning this section into a full example of how the scheme works, potentially moving it to after Section 6. Nits/editorial comments: None.
- [Gen-art] Re: Genart last call review of draft-ie… David Schinazi
- [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-h… Reese Enghardt via Datatracker