Re: [Secret] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-tigress-00-01: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi Qin!

Thanks for the review.  More inline …

From: Secret <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Qin Wu
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2022 6:09 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>; Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Secret] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-tigress-00-01: (with COMMENT)


Agree with Eric to use 3rd person, fixing this is easy, here is the proposed change:

OLD TEXT:

“

There are many situations in which it is desirable to transfer a copy of a

digital credential to another person. For example, you may want to provide

access to your vehicle to a friend or a family member. You may also want to

provide access to your home to your cat sitter. Or, you may want to transfer a

copy of a hotel key to your spouse. Today, no such standardized method exists

in a cross-platform, credential type-agnostic capacity.

”

NEW TEXT:

“

There are many situations in which it is desirable to transfer a copy of a

digital credential to another person. For example, Private car owners may want to provide

access to their vehicle to a friend or a family member. Private Home owners may want to

provide access to their home to their cat sitter. Or, Rental hotel room owners may want to transfer a

copy of a hotel key to their spouse. Today, no such standardized method exists

in a cross-platform, credential type-agnostic capacity.

”



[Roman] Since this style observation keeps coming up, I’ve merged a modified version of the above text into 00-05.



Also I want to make sure I understand the meaning of ‘cross-platform’ word? Two understandings we can have:

1.        OS independent: Sender uses its mobile device with OS A to send credential, receiver uses its mobile device with OS B to receive credential from relay server.

2.        Platform independent: Separate credential provision from credential transfer, relay server is deployed in one platform, while credential authority is deployed in another platform.

I am wondering which one is correct?



[Roman] Definitely 1.  Additionally, it would be a heterogenous ecosystem of end-point platforms (e.g., OS) supporting an equally heterogenous set of use cases (e.g., per the first paragraph of cars, houses, and hotels rooms).  2 roughly falls out of that.



Regards,

Roman



-Qin

Re: [Secret] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-tigress-00-01: (with COMMENT)

"Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> Wed, 29 June 2022 21:13 UTCShow header<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secret/0WWCaN8O4YYyAi_11w_boJFJcmw/>

Hello Roman,



Thank you for your reply and actions.



I agree that the 2nd person use in the charter is a matter of style, it is not mine but I do not mind at all as long as the secretive feline agrees with this wording.



Regards



-éric





On 29/06/2022, 19:47, "Roman Danyliw" <[e-mail]><mailto:&lt;[e-mail]&gt;> wrote:



    Hi Éric!



    Thank you for the feedback.  It has been folded into 00-02.  More inline ...



    > -----Original Message-----

    > From: iesg <[e-mail]><mailto:&lt;[e-mail]&gt;> On Behalf Of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker

    > Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 2:07 AM

    > To: The IESG <[e-mail]><mailto:&lt;[e-mail]&gt;>

    > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

    > Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on charter-ietf-tigress-00-01: (with

    > COMMENT)

    >

    > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for

    > charter-ietf-tigress-00-01: 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-tigress/

    >

    >

    >

    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    > COMMENT:

    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    >

    > Interesting pieces of work that will be quite useful. Here are some quick

    > comments:

    >

    > The 1st paragraph is written using "you", I would prefer to read it as the 3rd

    > person.



    I can see that, but I think this might be a matter of style.  Let's see what the community review returns.



    > 2nd paragraph, in "Note that neither private keys", the "note that" looks

    > strange in a charter, suggest to replace it by "Note: neither private keys".



    Changed.



    > The MD format (bullet list) is broken in a couple of places.



    I did my best by inserting too many CR to get bullets to break across lines.  I'm having issues with MD rendering the text to be bullets without line breaks.



    > It is unclear what "sensitive details of the share" are.

    >

    > The charter has privacy & security "goals" and "considerations", while I am not

    > a native English speaker, I wonder those 2 words are synonyms. Should

    > 'requirements' be used ?



    In this case, I would consider "goals", "considerations" and "requirements" synonyms.  However, there is no reason to use all three.  The text now only uses "goals"



    Roman