[Teep] Re: draft-ietf-teep-protocol-21 ietf last call Artart review

[Mingliang Pei <[e-mail]>]

Hi Scott,

Thank you for your suggestions. We authors will discuss this and get back
to you, as this is a schema change to add a new field.

Other than "err-msg", there is another message field, teep-success.msg that
"contains optional diagnostics information". While this doesn't explicitly
say "human-readable" it intends to be so. I wonder if a "lang" field is
required to be paired with a message in most protocols.

Thanks,

Ming


On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 7:54 AM Scott Hollenbeck via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Document: draft-ietf-teep-protocol
> Title: Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) Protocol
> Reviewer: Scott Hollenbeck
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I've been asked to review the subject draft as a member of the ARTART
> review
> team. The draft is well written and very thorough in its description of the
> Trusted Execution Environment Provisioning (TEEP) protocol.
>
> I found only one issue that needs attention. In Sections 4.4 and 4.6,
> there's a
> description of the err-msg (error message) parameter:
>
> "The err-msg parameter is human-readable diagnostic text that MUST be
> encoded
> using UTF-8 [RFC3629] using Net-Unicode form [RFC5198] with max 128 bytes."
>
> This is helpful, but there's no indication of the human language that
> should be
> used to interpret the diagnostic text. I recommend inclusion of an
> additional
> parameter, perhaps "err-lang", that can be used to identify the language
> of the
> error message. The value of this parameter must be a language tag as
> specified
> in RFC 5646.
>
>
>