Based on the notes below, it looks like you have understood my commends and handled them.
Russ > On Nov 2, 2021, at 4:29 AM, Peter van der Stok <[email protected]> wrote: > > HI Russ, > > thanks for the comments. > > Below some partial reactions. > > Peter > Russ Housley via Datatracker schreef op 2021-11-01 19:51: > >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review result: On the Right Track >> >> I reviewed this document as part of the IoT Directorate's effort to >> IoT-related IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments >> were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. >> Document authors, document editors, and WG chairs should treat these >> comments just like any other IETF Last Call comments. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-anima-constrained-join-proxy-05 >> Reviewer: Russ Housley >> Review Date: 2021-11-01 >> Review Due Date: 2021-11-19 >> >> >> A review from the IoT Directorate was requested on 2021-11-01. >> >> >> Summary: Almost Ready >> >> >> Major Concerns: >> >> Section 1: The first paragraph starts rather abruptly, and the first >> sentence is a bit cumbersome. I think it needs to begin with a bit >> more background to define: >> >> - Bootstrapping Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) >> - secure zero-touch bootstrap >> - pledge >> - registrar >> - proxy >> - IDevID certificate >> >> => Concern is understood. >> >> Some of these are covered in Section 2, but not all of them. The >> alternaive is to provide a pointer early in Section 1 that an >> understanding of the terms in Section 2 is assumed. >> >> => I will try to balance the text in sections 1 and 2. >> >> Then, the second paragraph says that "specified solutions use https and >> may be too large in terms of code space or bandwidth required for >> constrained devices." This should cite those "specified solutions". >> The last paragraph of Section 1 provides some of this, but it would >> help for this information to be earlier in the section. >> >> => will put in a "for example, ...." >> >> >> Minor Concerns: >> >> Title: The title is "Constrained Join Proxy for Bootstrapping Protocols". >> However, the Join Proxy is not constrained. Rather, it is a Join Proxy >> that is intended to support constrained Pledges. >> >> => as Michael wrote: to be handled in section 1, telling that a pledge after >> enrollment can become a join proxy. >> and a pledge is "constrained". >> >> Nits: >> >> Abstract: The reference to [RFC8995] should be replace with text. >> References are not permitted in the Abstract. In addition, CoAP >> should be spelled out of give a bit more context. >> >> => Ok >> >> Section 1: I was surprised that "Enrolment" was used instead of >> "Enrollment". Apparently both spellings are okay. However, RFC 7030 >> and RFC 8559 both use the second spelling. Consistency seems like >> a good idea to me. >> >> => this is new to me, thanks. will change. >> >> Section 1, 3rd para: s/artefacts/artifacts/ >> >> => Ok >> >> Section 1, 4th para says "new Pledge". When is a Pledge not new? >> >> => will try to avoid tautologies. >> >> Section 5.2: s/"new" JPY message/newly specified JPY message/ >> >> => see the point. will think up text. >> >> Section 7: >> The "Near" and "Remote" paragraphs are not properly indented. >> s/{{I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est}}/[I-D.ietf-ace-coap-est]/ >> >> s/{{I-D.ietf-anima-constrained-voucher}}/[I-D.ietf-anima-constrained-voucher]/ >> >> => Oopst, this needs mkd engineering. >> >> Section 7.1.1: s/CoAP discovery{#coap-disc}/CoAP discovery/ >> >> => missed that one as well. >> >> => thanks, will let you know when the "new" version is available. >> >> Peter >> _______________________________________________ >> Anima mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima>
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
