Subject: [Ace] Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-aif-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 08:46:38 -0800

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ace-aif-06: 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-ace-aif/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully an easy one to fix or clarify:

   *  The set of numbers is converted into a single number REST-method-
      set by taking each number to the power of two and computing the
      inclusive OR of the binary representations of all the power
      values.

I just wanted to check that this is expressed the right way round?  I read
"taking each number to power of two" as meaning taking the square of each
method number.  Whereas, I would have assumed that what you mean is "two to the
power of each method number", i.e., each REST method is indicated by a binary
bit position in a potentially 64 bit number?

E.g., a/led should be 2^0 | 2^2 = 5

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

   For a method X, the presence of a Dynamic-X permission means that the
   subject holds permission to exercise the method X on resources that
   have been returned in a 2.01 (201) response by a Location-indicating
   mechanism to a request that the subject made to the resource listed
   (/a/make-coffee in the example shown in Table 2, which might return
   the location of a resource that allows GET to find out about the
   status and DELETE to cancel the coffee-making operation).

It might be helpful to indicate that 2.01 means "created" (I had to look it
up), and perhaps expand "which might return the location of a resource" to
"which might return the location of a coffee machine resource"

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 22:11:39 +0100

Hi Rob,

thank you for this feedback!

I’m currently collecting updates into https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif until the ID submission opens again.

> On 2022-03-07, at 17:46, Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

Indeed.  As an original German speaker, I find the English language way to talk about exponentiation clumsy and confusing; so thank you for fixing this up for me.

Fixed in https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/commit/4b07e69

(I’m not sure I should go the lengths of explaining this I went to in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9100.html#figure-1 :-)

… and to break up the monster sentence.

Fixed in https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/commit/d7748f3

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 10:50:03 +0000

Hi Carsten,

Please see inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
> Sent: 08 March 2022 21:12
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; The IESG <[email-masked]>;
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Robert Wilton's Discuss on draft-ietf-ace-aif-06: (with DISCUSS
> and COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> Indeed.  As an original German speaker, I find the English language way to
> talk about exponentiation clumsy and confusing; so thank you for fixing this
> up for me.

:-)

> Fixed in https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/commit/4b07e69

Looks good to me.  I will clear the discuss.

> 
> (I’m not sure I should go the lengths of explaining this I went to in
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9100.html#figure-1 :-)

Oh, I don't know, you must have been quite pleased to get a maths equation cleanly into an RFC :-).  But, for clarity, I think that you are good with your proposed text above.

> Fixed in https://github.com/cabo/ace-aif/commit/d7748f3

Thanks,
Rob