Hello Francesca, Thank you. I welcome these suggestions - I do not foresee other permission keywords looking at the MQTT vocabulary (control packets); happy to "hard-code" "pub" and "sub". If there aren't any other opinions, I will implement them this way. There are a few other minor clarifications I am waiting for feedback, and with those clarified, I will be ready to publish a new ID.
Kind regards, --Cigdem On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 at 12:35, Francesca Palombini < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Cigdem, > > > > Thank you for the quick reply! > > The two additional registrations for the parameters Toid and Tperm look > good, although I have a couple of suggestions: > > 1. For Toid I would add a reference to Section 1.3 (and maybe > capitalize Topic Filter, just to be nitpicking). I would also mention that > this is ancoded ass a text string (or point to section 2.3). > 2. For Tperm, I don’t think it is needed to create an additional > registry, unless you foresee that there might be need to add new methods > other than “pub” and “sub” in the future, in which case I agree with you > that the IANA registry is the best choice. If you don’t, I would remove the > new registry and just mention that the Tperm is a text string with value > either “pub” or “sub”, and reference section 2.3. > > I think that should cover it. Again, Carsten’s opinion is welcome as the > creator of the registry (lacking the Designated expert that is not yet > assigned). > > > > > > Francesca > > > > *From: *Cigdem Sengul <[email protected]> > *Date: *Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 12:57 > *To: *Francesca Palombini <[email protected]> > *Cc: *The IESG <[email protected]>, [email protected] < > [email protected]>, [email protected] < > [email protected]>, Ace Wg <[email protected]>, Daniel Migault < > [email protected]>, Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> > *Subject: *Re: Francesca Palombini's Discuss on > draft-ietf-ace-mqtt-tls-profile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) > > 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
