Great, thanks for considering my comments!
Best,
/Marco
On 2024-12-09 12:05, Fries, Steffen
wrote:
Hello Marco, Sorry for the late reply. Thank you for your review. The issues are commented below and addressed (issues and nits) in an updated version, that I put on the ANIMA github (https://eur05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">). I wanted to wait for additional feedback before submitting a new version to the datatracker. I also created an issue (#135) for the changes to make it better trackable. Best regards Steffen-----Original Message----- From: Marco Tiloca via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2024 11:35 AM To: iot-directorate@xxxxxxxx Cc: anima@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx Subject: Iotdir last call review of draft-ietf-anima-brski-prm-15 Reviewer: Marco Tiloca Review result: Ready with Nits Hi, I am the assigned IoT-Directorate reviewer for this draft. Summary: Ready with Nits. This document specifies the Bootstrapping a Remote Secure Key Infrastructure (BRSKI) with Pledge in Responder Mode (PRM), thus enabling the bootstrapping of a pledge device that acts as server during the process. I previously reviewed version -05, and I find the quality of the document greatly improved since then as to clarity and presentation.[stf] Thank you. We did a lot of restructuring with the help of Matthias (Document Shepherd) to improve readability.Please see below my comments for version -15. I hope it helps! Best, /Marco [Section 6.1.2] * It says: > The discovery of the pledge by the Registrar-Agent in the context of this document describes the minimum discovery approach to be supported. Can this be more assertive and normatively say "... the minimum discovery approach that MUST be supported." ?[stf] Yes, this is true. As it is the minimum discovery approach to be supported MUST is correct here.[Section 7.5.2.1] * It says > ... or an array of at least two X.509 v3 certificates ... This requires to fix the CDDL definition in Figure 27 (see Sections 3.2 and 3.4 of RFC 8610). OLD: "x5bag": bytes / [+ bytes] NEW: "x5bag": bytes / [2* bytes][stf] Thanks for catching this. I corrected it accordingly. The example in RFC 8610 section 3.4 made it clear.[Nits][stf] I addressed all of the nits mentioned below in the updated document.* Section 1 - s/associated to/associated with * Section 3.1.3 - s/operate a RA/operate an RA * Section 3.2 - s/communicate with another/communicate with one another * Section 5.1 - s/or protocol to be/or protocols to be * Section 5.4 - s/communicated via/communicates via * Section 6.1.2 - s/an DNS-SD/a DNS-SD - s/a mDNS/an mDNS - s/support this functionality/supports this functionality * Section 6.3.1 - s/establishment, that/establishment that * Section 6.4 - s/resp./respectively. * Section 7.2.2.2 - s/in the case the/in case the * Section 7.3 - s/is of the pledge verified/of the pledge are verified - s/to an Registrar/to a Registrar * Section 7.3.1 - s/MASA MAY chose/MASA MAY choose - s/certificate that signed by/certificate that is signed by * Section 7.3.6 - s/BRSKi-PRM/BRSKI-PRM * Section 7.4 - s/signed signed with/signed with * Section 7.6 - s/MAY stored/MAY store - s/but use the/but using the - s/pledge did not did not/pledge did not * Section 7.6.2.3 - s/plege/pledge * Section 7.7 - s/certficate/certificate - s/processed by pledge/processed by the pledge * Section 7.10 - s/Second, the Registrar-Agent/First, the Registrar-Agent[stf] I did change it to "The Registrar-Agent ..." as the second/First was not necessary here.* Section 7.11.2.3 - s/according its bootstrapping/according to its bootstrapping * Section 8 - s/in EE certificate/in the EE certificate * Section 10 - s/to optional apply/to optionally apply * Section 11 - s/BRSKI-PRM, the pledge/BRSKI-PRM the pledge - s/does not limited/does not limit - s/simply resent the/simply resend the * Appendix B - s/dependant/dependent - s/scanable/scannable - s/useable/usable
-- Marco Tiloca Ph.D., Senior Researcher Phone: +46 (0)70 60 46 501 RISE Research Institutes of Sweden AB Box 1263 164 29 Kista (Sweden) Division: Digital Systems Department: Computer Science Unit: Cybersecurity https://www.ri.se
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xEE2664B40E58DA43.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
