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

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:29:10 -0700

Stephen Farrell 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 the response to my discuss, since the WG did  think
it through, I've cleared. 

----- OLD COMMENTS below

- General: why would one want to ever run this protocol
without TLS? Did the WG consider saying that TLS MUST be used?
Again, if you tell me you thought about it, I'll just clear.

- 7.1.2: The framework uses "Identifier" but here you use
"Identity" - it'd be better to be consistent I think and
"Identifier" is a lot better.

- section 11 is weaker than the corresponding section in the
framework draft. Two things: 1) why not point back to the
framework here? 2) shouldn't you say which of the
vulns/mitigations called out in the framework are relevant or
mitigated here?