Re: [Id-event] Repeat WG last call: Subject Identifiers

I agree with Mike. Section 3.2.3 should be revised to be a URI/URL format
since DIDs are a type of URIs. If you think it would be helpful to the DID
community, this section could specifically call out that DIDs are a type of
URL with the examples in the current draft.

The introduction section talks about IP address and MAC address as
identifiers as well, but those are not listed as identifier formats. Was
that an intentional omission?

Editorial: I realize the list of identifier format definitions is sorted
alphabetically, but I personally found it awkward that the "aliases" type
was the second one listed. I think it would read better if the "aliases"
type were the last one in the list.

Aaron

On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 2:59 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones=
40microsoft.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> I support publication of this draft following a few revisions.  I’d like
> comments below to be addressed first.
>
>
>
> NORMATIVE
>
>
>
> Section 3 (Subject Identifiers) says “A Subject Identifier MUST NOT
> contain any members prohibited or not described by its Identifier Format,
> and MUST contain all members required by its Identifier Format.”  This is
> not normal JSON usage; normal JSON usage would allow additional members to
> be present and say that they must be ignored if not understood.  We should
> consider making this change.  At the very least, formats should be allowed
> to define that their elements are extensible.
>
>
>
> Section 3.2.3 defines a DID URL format.  There’s nothing special here
> about a DID URLs that would make them different than other URLs.  Please
> revise this section to instead define either a “url” or “uri” format.  It
> would be fine to say that DID URLs are one kind of URL or URI that could be
> used, just as https URLs would be.  That would be more general and would
> still allow the use of DID URLs as subject identifiers.
>
>
>
> EDITORIAL
>
>
>
> “general purpose” -> “general-purpose”
>
>
>
> RFC 7159 is listed twice in the Definitions section.
>
>
>
> It’s customary to acknowledge individual reviewers of the specification by
> name.  Please do so.
>
>
>
>                                                        Best wishes,
>
>                                                        -- Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* Id-event <id-event-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of *Yaron Sheffer
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 9, 2022 2:54 PM
> *To:* id-event@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [Id-event] Repeat WG last call: Subject Identifiers
>
>
>
> This is to start a repeat working group last call for
> draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers [1]. Please respond to the list
> with your comments, even if they only amount to “I read the draft and it’s
> fine”.
>
>
>
> We solicit and encourage WG feedback. However given the age of the draft
> and overall low working group energy, the current plan is to progress the
> draft to the IESG by default, unless any major issues are raised.
>
>
>
> As you review the document, please note that two versions (-09 and -10)
> were published recently.
>
>
>
> The LC will be open until * March 20*.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>                 Yaron
>
>
>
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Id-event mailing list
> Id-event@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/id-event
>