Subject: [drinks] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:33:36 -0800

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: 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-protocol-over-soap/

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

Thanks for your work on this draft.  I have some comments and suggestions
that I'd like to be considered:

Section 4:
Instead of HTTP(S), I'd prefer to see HTTP/TLS. Would that cause any
heartburn?  It would make the text consistent with the next section.

Please change SSL to TLS in this section as well.

Section 5:
OK, I see you have TLS listed here, along with a minimum version by
reference to the RFC for TLS 1.2.  All good, thanks.

A pointer to the BCP from UTA:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp/ following the
last sentence, might be helpful.  It's in IETF last call now, so it
shouldn't hold up this draft and could even be done as an informational
reference so it won't matter that it's not published yet.  Alternatively,
this reference could be in section 11.1.

Section 7.3
Is a response code needed when the XML does not validate to the schema or
other requirements that may exist in addition to schema conformance?  Or
does this happen somewhere else or perhaps this should be stated as part
of one of the existing response codes?