Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert-17: 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-cose-cbor-encoded-cert/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi John, Göran, Shahid, Joel, and Martin, Many thanks for the well-written document. Excellent work. I have two points to check. I flagged some few nits and minor edits that I will send to the authors in a PR. # IETF Review with Expert Review CURRENT: All assignments according to "IETF Review with Expert Review" are made on a "IETF Review" basis per {{Section 4.8 of RFC8126}} with "Expert Review" additionally required per {{Section 4.5 of RFC8126}}. and the registration procedure is "IETF Review with Expert Review". I remember that Carsten edited draft-bormann-gendispatch-with-expert-review, but do we have a stable reference where such policy is defined? # The WG may be closed: not sure how this guidance will age CURRENT: In addition, working group chairs are encouraged to consult the expert(s) early during the process outlined in Section 3.1 of {{RFC7120}}. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Is this already deployed there or these are deployment targets? CURRENT: C509 is deployed in, e.g., in-vehicle and vehicle-to-cloud communication, Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS), and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) “is deployed” won’t age well in an RFC, btw. # Please consider adding a reference CURRENT : the CBOR encoding can in many cases reduce the size of RFC7925 profiled certificates by over 50%. # Any reason why this is repeated here? CURRENT: The procedure for early IANA allocation of "standards track code points" defined in {{RFC7120}} also applies. Cheers, Med _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
