Subject: [Ace] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 07:05:03 -0700

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize-16: No Objection

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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ace-dtls-authorize/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
appreciated), and some nits.

I hope that this helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

== COMMENTS ==

Is there any reason to use DTLS 1.2 while the document DTLS 1.3 is on the same
IESG telechat ? I understand that they are from different WG but this may not
be the most efficient to specify a protocol using DTLS.

-- Section 3.1 --
Has the "resource owner (RO)" been defined earlier ?

-- Section 3.2.2 --
The wrong selection of RPK recovery is unclear to me. What happens if the
client does not have the right public key ?

== NITS ==

Sometimes it is "Raw Public Keys", or "RPK" or "RawPublicKey"... Is it on
purpose to use 3 different writings for possibly the same concept?