[Suit] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-suit-information-model-08: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-suit-information-model-08: 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.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-suit-information-model/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document. It is easy to read and the
examples are useful.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits. I draw authors' attention to my comment on section
4.

Stephen Farrel, in copy, also did a IOT directorate review available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-suit-information-model-08-iotdir-telechat-farrell-2020-12-02/
Thank you again Stephen Please address/reply to all his points.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

As usual, I find a little suprizing that an information model is "standards
track" rather than "informational" (e.g., RFC 8454,
draft-ietf-babel-information-model, draft-ietf-detnet-flow-information-model).
Data models are of course "standards track". There are exceptions though: RFC
5477, 7012, and 8193 are informational model in standards track.

Why is the word "manifest" absent of the title ? The companion data model
document has it.

-- Section 1 --

Two pedantic comments/questions:

1) "The information model describes all the information elements required..."
should "relationships" be included in the sentence ?

2) "The information model does not define the serialization, encoding,
ordering, or structure of information elements, only their semantics." is
nearly a pleonasm as it should be obvious for an information model as opposed
to a data model.

-- Section 2.1 --
How much this section about "REQUIRED", ... definitions contradicts/overlaps
with section 1 definition of those terms ?

-- Section 3.1 --
"manifest format" does it refer to draft-ietf-suit-manifest, if so, then a
reference is required and how is this format is described ?

-- Section 3.2 --
"A monotonically increasing sequence number" should this number be unsigned ?
What about rollover ?

-- Section 3.1.1 & 3.4.2 & 3.4.4 (and possibly others) --
s/vendorId = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-a.com")/vendorId = UUID5(DNS,
"vendor-a.exmaple.com")/

-- Section 3.8 --
Should the type of "format" be specified in the information model ? (e.g., as
an enum or a string or ...) especially when Vendor ID element is very detailed
as UUID.

-- Section 3.13 --
While I am not a security expert, I would associate "integrity" (and not
"authenticity") with a "digest" that is not a HMAC. But, I am trusting your SEC
AD and his review ;-)

-- Section 4 --
The train has left the station of course but I really wonder what is the
relationship of this section to an information model. NB: I do like the content
though ;-)

-- Section 7.1 --
I wonder whether the reference to draft-ietf-suit-architecture (informational)
is really normative.

== NITS ==

There are a couple of missing ',' after some words "but" "instead" "e.g." "for
example" "typically" "therefore" ;-)

-- Section 3.5 --
Would "prerequisite" be more suitable than "precursor" ?