Re: [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-14

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Christer, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document.

Lars


> On Oct 28, 2022, at 23:11, Christer Holmberg via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> 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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-14
> Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
> Review Date: 2022-10-28
> IETF LC End Date: 2022-11-17
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: The document is well structured, and easy to read, but I have an
> editorial issue that I ask the authors to address.
> 
> Major issues: N/A
> 
> Minor issues: N/A
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> The definition of Subject is a little unclear to me. RFC 8417 states that a
> subject might be e.g., an IP address, or the issuer of the SET, and that SETs
> are used to indicate state changes in the subject.
> 
> draft-ietf-secevent-subject-identifiers-14 gives an example where the subject
> is an account, that might be identified using an IP address. From the 8417
> language, I assume the account would be considered "an issuer of the SET".
> 
> Now, does that mean that a SET will be sent if the account change state, but
> not if the IP address identifiying the account changes - as the IP address is
> not a subject, only a subject identifier?
> 
> I guess what I am saying is that I find it difficult to differentiate between a
> subject and a subject identifier, as e.g., an IP address can be both :)
> 
> 
> 
> --
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call