Subject: [drinks] Jari Arkko's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 08:24:54 -0800

Jari Arkko has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-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.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/

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

I would be interested in hearing an answer at least with regards to the
following items raised in Peter Yee's Gen-ART review. In both cases I
too was left wondering what the text actually meant.

Section 7.2: Is the "Delete" operation meant to be atomic?  Should that
be
specified in that section?

Section 9.7: this section discusses how the "transport protocol"
provides
connection protection services and then says that therefore a
man-in-the-middle attack is possible.  If that's the case, then the
"transport protocol" is not (adequately) providing connection
protection.
And without connection protection, a man-in-the-middle attack would of
course be possible, so saying that because there is connection
protection, a
man-in-the-middle attack is therefore possible seems misleading.