Collection of Nits

[hannestschofenig]

Éric Vyncke wrote:

-- Section 1 --

Two pedantic comments/questions:

1) "The information model describes all the information elements required..." should "relationships" be included in the sentence ?

2) "The information model does not define the serialization, encoding, ordering, or structure of information elements, only their semantics." is nearly a pleonasm as it should be obvious for an information model as opposed to a data model.

-- Section 2.1 -- How much this section about "REQUIRED", ... definitions contradicts/overlaps with section 1 definition of those terms ?

-- Section 3.1 -- "manifest format" does it refer to draft-ietf-suit-manifest, if so, then a reference is required and how is this format is described ?

-- Section 3.2 -- "A monotonically increasing sequence number" should this number be unsigned ? What about rollover ?

-- Section 3.1.1 & 3.4.2 & 3.4.4 (and possibly others) -- s/vendorId = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-a.com")/vendorId = UUID5(DNS, "vendor-a.exmaple.com")/

-- Section 3.8 -- Should the type of "format" be specified in the information model ? (e.g., as an enum or a string or ...) especially when Vendor ID element is very detailed as UUID.

-- Section 3.13 -- While I am not a security expert, I would associate "integrity" (and not "authenticity") with a "digest" that is not a HMAC. But, I am trusting your SEC AD and his review ;-)

-- Section 4 -- The train has left the station of course but I really wonder what is the relationship of this section to an information model. NB: I do like the content though ;-)

-- Section 7.1 -- I wonder whether the reference to draft-ietf-suit-architecture (informational) is really normative.

== NITS ==

There are a couple of missing ',' after some words "but" "instead" "e.g." "for example" "typically" "therefore" ;-)

-- Section 3.5 -- Would "prerequisite" be more suitable than "precursor" ?

[hannestschofenig]

Fixed with -10 version of the draft.