Subject: [Suit] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-suit-information-model-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 20:26:35 -0800

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-suit-information-model-08: 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-suit-information-model/

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

This is good work, and thanks for doing it.  I only have a few very minor
comments:

— Section 3.3.1 —

   vendorId = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-a.com")

Please use a BCP 32 domain name reserved for examples in documentation, here
and throughout.  I suggest “vendor-a.example” here.

— Section 3.15 —

   It is NOT REQUIRED for a serialization to
   authenticate multiple manifests with a single Signature element.

“NOT REQUIRED” is not a BCP 14 key word.  I suggest just making the two words
lower case.  Also in Section 3.24.

— Section 4.5.11 —

   It MUST be possible to place a payload in the same structure as the
   manifest.  This MAY place the payload in the same packet as the
   manifest.

The MAY appears to be a statement, not a protocol option, and should be “may”
(or “might”).