Hello Francesca, Thank you for your feedback. My response is below.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 10:03, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-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-ace-mqtt-tls-profile/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Updating my ballot after reviewing draft-ietf-ace-aif-06. Just want to make > sure we don't miss anything, please feel free to correct me if I missed the > mark here. > > FP: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ace-aif-06#section-4 > states: > > default values are the values "URI-local- > part" for Toid and "REST-method-set" for Tperm, as per Section 3 of > the present specification. > > A specification that wants to use Generic AIF with different Toid > and/or Tperm is expected to request these as media type parameters > (Section 5.2) and register a corresponding Content-Format > (Section 5.3). > > FP: I wonder if this document should define a new media type parameter for > Tperm (as REST-method-set is not appropriate for "pub"/"sub" value) and > register a corresponding Content-Format as indicated in the paragraph > above. > CC'ing Carsten for his opinion. > CS: Since we considered this for the Broker's consumption using MQTT, registration of a new media type looks like it was overlooked. I assume you are raising this issue as the client may use the scope for token requests using application/ace+json(cbor) application/aif+json(cbor) If that is the case, I suggest the following text for AIF and MQTT Permissions registry (with Expert Review registration procedure) similar to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-key-groupcomm-oscore/ - AIF For the media-types application/aif+cbor and application/aif+json defined in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-ace-aif], IANA is requested to register the following entries for the two media-type parameters Toid and Tperm, in the respective sub-registry defined in Section 5.2 of [I-D.ietf-ace-aif] within the "MIME Media Type Sub-Parameter" registry group. * Name: mqtt-topic-filter * Description/Specification: topic filter used in MQTT * Reference: [[This document]] * Name: mqtt-permissions * Description/Specification: permissions for MQTT client. * Reference: [[This document]] MQTT Permissions This document establishes the IANA "MQTT Permissions" registry. The registry has been created to use the "Expert Review" registration procedure [RFC8126]. This registry includes the possible permissions of MQTT clients when communicating with an MQTT broker. The columns of this registry are: * Name: A value that can be used in documents for easier comprehension, to identify a possible permissions of MQTT clients. * Description: This field contains a brief description of the permission. * Reference: This contains a pointer to the public specification for the permission. This registry will be initially populated by the names "pub", "sub". The Reference column for all of these entries will be [[This document]]. Are there any other registries involved? Thanks, > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work on this document > > Many thanks to Jean Mahoney for her ART ART review: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/REdbeKR0FBJ1CnVtKOUaJnaeONk/, > and to > the authors for addressing it. > > Only two minor comments easy to fix, see below. > > Francesca > > 1. ----- > > FP: Please replace references to RFC7230 with > draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 > which will obsolete it once published. Note that > draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19 is already with the RFC Editor so will not > delay publication of your document. > > 2. ----- > > Section 7.3 > > FP: I believe this profile should be registered in the Standards track > portion > of the registry - please add a note about it so that IANA is aware, > changing > for example: > > OLD: > * CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA > NEW: > * CBOR Value: To be assigned by IANA in the (-256, 255) range > > > >
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
