Re: [Teep] Lars Eggert's No Objection on draft-ietf-teep-architecture-18: (with COMMENT)

[Mingliang Pei <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lars,

Thank you very much for your suggestions and the list of good catches on
the Nits. Sorry for the late reply. We are catching up in revising the
draft, and am incorporating your suggestions along with other reviewers'
comments.

We have created a PR here
<https://github.com/ietf-teep/architecture/pull/257> that incorporates your
suggestions, which is tracked in this issue
<https://github.com/ietf-teep/architecture/issues/253> in TEEP Github. With
the remaining "consensus boilerplate" to add, all fixes are in. Thank you
again,

Ming


On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 10:52 AM Lars Eggert via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-teep-architecture-18: 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/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-teep-architecture/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-teep-architecture-18
>
> CC @larseggert
>
> Thanks to Paul Kyzivat for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_PQLgwbAxaVsfWgfg62QZHYYlYs
> ).
>
> ## Comments
>
> ### Unclear consensus
>
> The datatracker state does not indicate whether the consensus boilerplate
> should be included in this document. The shepherd writeup makes it pretty
> clear that it should, so please change the datatracker metadata for the
> document?
>
> ### Inclusive language
>
> Found terminology that should be reviewed for inclusivity; see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/part2/#inclusive_language for background and
> more
> guidance:
>
>  * Term `man`; alternatives might be `individual`, `people`, `person`
>  * Terms `she` and `he`; alternatives might be `they`, `them`, `their`
>
> ## Nits
>
> All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may
> choose to
> address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by
> automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so
> there
> will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what
> you
> did with these suggestions.
>
> ### Typos
>
> #### Section 4.1, paragraph 4
> ```
> -       Administators may elect to use a TAM for remote administration of
> +       Administrators may elect to use a TAM for remote administration of
> +               +
> ```
>
> #### Section 4.1, paragraph 5
> ```
> -       Trusted Component Signers or Device Administators to use the TAM's
> +       Trusted Component Signers or Device Administrators to use the TAM's
> +                                                   +
> ```
>
> #### Section 4.4.2, paragraph 1
> ```
> -    a specific Untrused Application process lifetime as occurs in SGX.  A
> +    a specific Untrusted Application process lifetime as occurs in SGX.  A
> +                     +
> ```
>
> #### Section 4.5, paragraph 8
> ```
> -    via a TEEP Broker that faciliates communications between the TAM and
> +    via a TEEP Broker that facilitates communications between the TAM and
> +                                 +
> ```
>
> ### Boilerplate
>
> Document still refers to the "Simplified BSD License", which was corrected
> in
> the TLP on September 21, 2021. It should instead refer to the "Revised BSD
> License".
>
> ### Grammar/style
>
> #### Section 2, paragraph 8
> ```
> ust resist modification against unauthorized insertion, deletion, and
> modifi
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> Do not mix variants of the same word ("unauthorized" and "unauthorised")
> within
> a single text.
>
> #### Section 4.5, paragraph 9
> ```
> ed further in Section 5.3 below. Typically the same key TEE pair is used
> for
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Typically".
>
> #### Section 6.1, paragraph 1
> ```
> . ProcessTeepMessage: A message arriving on an existing TEEP session, to
> be d
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> The usual preposition after "arriving" is "at", not "on". Did you mean
> "arriving at"?
>
> #### Section 7, paragraph 1
> ```
> s, from trusted app updates for smart phones and tablets to updates of code
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> Nowadays, it's more common to write this as one word.
>
> #### Section 9.1, paragraph 3
> ```
> AM certificates might get compromised or its certificate might expire, or
> a T
>                                      ^^^
> ```
> Use a comma before "or" if it connects two independent clauses (unless
> they are
> closely connected and short).
>
> #### Section 9.1, paragraph 4
> ```
> EE certificates might get compromised or its certificate might expire, or
> a T
>                                      ^^^
> ```
> Use a comma before "or" if it connects two independent clauses (unless
> they are
> closely connected and short).
>
> #### Section 9.3, paragraph 1
> ```
> oked by a timer or other event. Furthermore the policy in the Verifier in
> an
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> A comma may be missing after the conjunctive/linking adverb "Furthermore".
>
> #### Section 9.3, paragraph 3
> ```
>  certificates are expected to be long lived, longer than the lifetime of a
> d
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
> ```
> This word is normally spelled with a hyphen.
>
> ## Notes
>
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use
> the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT].
>
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
> [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool
>
>
>
>

-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.