[Suit] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-suit-report-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Brendan,

Thank you for your message and the revised I-D, as it fully addresses my previous blocking DISCUSS, I have cleared my position.

Regards,

-éric

From: Brendan Moran <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 25 November 2025 at 13:27
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-suit-report-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Éric,

Thanks for the thorough review and DISCUSS.

> Please add a normative reference to the syntax used in the ‘code’ describing the data structure before the first code, CDDL is only cited (and no reference given) at the 3rd ‘code’.

We now cite RFC 8610 before the initial CDDL block in Section 3 so
readers have the normative reference as soon as the syntax appears.

> Suggest adding a reference to the RFC about SUIT manifest … Please expand SUIT again (the abstract expansion is just for the abstract).

Section 1 re-introduces SUIT, cites the manifest draft directly, and
uses the Standards Track wording you suggested.

> Suggest appending SUIT_Reference below SUIT_Report … The paragraph about suit-report-nonce is also out of flow … Suggest that this section contains forward reference to where suit-report-records … are specified.

Section 4 now defines SUIT_Report and SUIT_Reference together, moves
the nonce text into that flow, and adds forward references to
{{suit-report-records}}, {{suit-report-result}}, and {{capabilities}}.

> “Is it just a rename operation or a registry creation request … add reference (URI) to all existing IANA registries … Missing text to request IANA to add this media type.”

The IANA section clarifies the registry-group rename, links each
request to its subsection, and explicitly describes the media-type
registration.

Best Regards,
Brendan Moran

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 11:09 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-suit-report-15: Discuss
>
> 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.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-suit-report/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-suit-report-15
> CC @evyncke
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
>
> Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
> non-blocking COMMENT points/nits (replies would be appreciated even if only for
> my own education).
>
> Special thanks to Jacqueline McCall for the shepherd's detailed write-up
> including the WG consensus *but it lacks* the justification of the intended
> status (it also uses the old template but this is not critical).
>
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> ## DISCUSS (blocking)
>
> As noted in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-handling-ballot-positions-20220121/,
> a DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the points below; I
> really think that the document would be improved with a change here, but can be
> convinced otherwise.
>
> ### Section 3
>
> Please add a normative reference to the syntax used in the "code" describing
> the data structure *before* the first code, CDDL is only cited (and no
> reference given) at the 3rd 'code'.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ## COMMENTS (non-blocking)
>
> ### Wrong intended status in the I-D
>
> I second Ketan's DISCUSS on this point.
>
> ### Abstract & Section 1
>
> Suggest adding a reference to the RFC about SUIT manifest.
>
> Depending on the intended publication status, `This specification describes`
> should rather be 'This document specifies' or 'This document describes'.
>
> ### Section 1
>
> Please expand SUIT again (the abstract expansion is just for the abstract).
>
> Should the term 'developper' be defined in this context ?
>
> ### Section 4
>
> Suggest appending SUIT_Reference below SUIT_Report as the text in between
> breaks the flow.
>
> The paragraph about suit-report-nonce  is also out of flow, it should appear
> earlier.
>
> Suggest that this section contains forward reference to where
> suit-report-records (and possibly other fields) are specified.
>
> ### Section 9
>
> Is it just a rename operation or a registry creation request in `IANA is
> requested to name the overall SUIT registry group` ?
>
> Strongly suggest to add reference (URI) to all existing IANA registries.
>
> Suggest adding forward reference to subsections in the list following `IANA is
> also requested to add the following registries to the SUIT registry group`.
>
> ### Section 9.2
>
> Missing text to request IANA to add this media type.
>
>
>