[Last-Call] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc-10
Emmanuel Baccelli via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 27 March 2024 12:35 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietf.org
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19976C16940D; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 05:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Emmanuel Baccelli via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: iot-directorate@ietf.org
Cc: core@ietf.org, draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.8.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171154294409.50756.11807106833081065141@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 05:35:44 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/s9FOFqGLp_ShNYy386sAI_fgoX0>
Subject: [Last-Call] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc-10
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 12:35:44 -0000
Reviewer: Emmanuel Baccelli Review result: Ready with Nits Hello, I've been selected as the IoT Directorate for a review of this draft. The document is very clearly structured, and very well written. I have a few minor nits and optional suggestions, listed below. # Overall: What *might* add marginal value is a small subsection somewhere upfront, which summarizes crisply the applicability / limits of the EDHOC+OSCORE request which are for now scattered in the doc (second paragraph of section 3. and last paragraph of section 3.2.2., if I did not miss something). # Section 1: "Without this optimization, it is not possible, not even in theory, to..." => Suggestion: just simplify to "Without this optimization, it is not possible to..." # Section 2: In Fig. 1 the caption ends by the mention "... without which that message needs no payload." => Suggestion: this mention is difficult to parse at first, and does not related obviously with the accompanying text. What about just removing this mention, or alternatively, rephrase? # Section 6: "It would be convenient to ..." "It would be convenient that ..." => Suggestion: fells a little convoluted. Is there an opportunity to simplify the text here, and make it more direct like "In order to enable XYZ, we specify ABC"? "While a client may become aware of the application profile through several means..." => Suggestion: why not give an concrete example here. # Section 7: "[...] a minimum of 128-bit security [...] is achieved" => Suggestion: A naive question that arises here is (caveat: I am not a cryptographer, as most readers aren't ;) does this 128-bit level hold post-quantum, as far as we can tell. If yes, mention that and maybe point to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9528#name-post-quantum-considerations ?
- [Last-Call] Iotdir telechat review of draft-ietf-… Emmanuel Baccelli via Datatracker
- Re: [Last-Call] Iotdir telechat review of draft-i… Marco Tiloca