Hello, I've created a new pull request for the changes: https://github.com/ace-wg/mqtt-tls-profile/pull/101 Explanations are below.
> > > > > [CS: Introduced a formal definition of Network Connection to > > > MQTT-related terminology - as defined in MQTT standard. > > > To the Will definition, added the situations when the connection is > > > considered not to have closed normally. > > > Question: Normal disconnection is DISCONNECT with reason code is 0x00, > > > according to MQTT standard - is this definition also needed?" > > > > [TE] So "not closed normally" means any way to terminate the Network > > Connection, other than DISCONNECT with reason code 0x00? If so, I think > > this would be a good addition to the definition, either as its own > > definition or added to the "Will" definition. > > I think that's right, but Cigdem knows MQTT better than me and she should > confirm. > [CS: Yes, added the DISCONNECT packet definition. I also took the MQTT standard text to specify more formally situations for sending a Will, which included a definition for normal disconnection. I reduced the Will-specific text in the main document, as this definition now is comprehensive.] > > > > > > > > > Section 2.1 > > > > > > [CS: Added for cnf: > > > > > > > rs_cnf: > > > > > [TE] These explanations already help, thanks! However, and this might > > just be me, but I keep wondering what 'cnf' stands for, i.e., if it is > > an acronym for something, and if it is, if it makes sense to expand the > > acronym. But it might just be a string that comes from "somewhere", > > which is fine with me, too. :) > > I think the lineage of "cnf" can be traced back to at least RFC 7800, so at > this point it's probably a fairly well established part of the greater > OAuth ecosystem. > > Which is not to say that we can't try to make the document more accessible > to new readers, of course. The ACE framework itself relies pretty heavily > on proof of possession semantics for JWT/CWT tokens, so perhaps the > implicit reliance on draft-ietf-ace-oauth-authz and its terminology would > suffice. Happy to hear further thoughts. > [CS: Added --> 'cnf' (confirmation) claim in its first instance. We are referencing the params document as well for both confirmation related claims (cnf, rs_cnf). Would this be enough?] Kind regards, --Cigdem > > -Ben >
_______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace
