Last Call Review of draft-ietf-cose-msg-18

Request Review of draft-ietf-cose-msg
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 24)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-09-27
Requested 2016-09-15
Authors Jim Schaad
Draft last updated 2016-09-28
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -18 by Meral Shirazipour (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -18 by Stephen Kent (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Meral Shirazipour 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-cose-msg-18-genart-lc-shirazipour-2016-09-28
Reviewed rev. 18 (document currently at 24)
Review result Ready with Nits
Review completed: 2016-09-28


I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at <>.  



Document: draft-ietf-cose-msg-18

Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour

Review Date: 2016-09-27

IETF LC End Date:  2016-09-28

IESG Telechat date: 2016-09-29





This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC but I have some comments.


Major issues:

Minor issues:



The JOSE working group produced a set of documents

   [RFC7515][RFC7516][RFC7517][RFC7518] using JSON that specified how to

   process encryption, signatures and message authentication (MAC)

   operations, and how to encode keys using JSON.  This document defines

   the CBOR Object Encryption and Signing (COSE) standard which does the

   same thing for the CBOR encoding format.



Was there a reason to not have multiple documents for CBOR? It would be good to add this reason to section 1 in the above mentioned paragraph.





Nits/editorial comments:


-[Page 5], "services for IoT, using CBOR"---->"services for IoT, and using CBOR"

-[Page 5], "[RFC7515][RFC7516][RFC7517][RFC7518]" , please check hyperref for 2nd and 4th reference (they don't appear in html view

-[Page 5], "message authentication (MAC)"---->"Message Authentication Code (MAC)"

-[Page 6], "There currently is"---->"There is currently"

-[Page 7], "For this, reason"---->"For this reason,"

-[Page 8] "this works consider"---->"this works, consider"

-general, in many section, e.g. 16.2: when listing terms+ definition, it would be clearer to add ":" in front of the term.

-Section 19.2 refrences to be updated


[I-D.greevenbosch-appsawg-cbor-cddl], is not v09


Best Regards,



Meral Shirazipour

Ericsson Research