Subject: [apps-discuss] Sean Turner's No Objection on draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Sean Turner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:20:22 -0700

Sean Turner has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc5451bis-09: 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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

I hate to slow down progression of this to IS, but I do agree with Pete's
assertion that this probably needs to recycle based on the number of
changes.*  (I'll note Barry's already said he's going to make it cycle so
no action but thought I should be on record)

How does this draft seemingly get away with not normatively referencing
the authentication methods?  On the one hand, I can see the argument that
this protocol merely copies information from another protocol to a field
and then sends it on its way back to the originator.  On the other hand,
doesn't the creator of the report need to understand the various
authentication mechanisms to know what result to send back?  And please
don't get me wrong, I don't want to hold publishing this up based on this
comment - I'm just curious.

*  the diff tool worked nicely here comparing the original rfc and the
bis.