Subject: [spring] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 11:29:50 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement-06: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spring-problem-statement/

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

(1)
I'm surprised that almost all of the requirements in this document are
SHOULDs, since they mostly apply to an architecture and not individual
solutions. In general I think it would help to explain the exception
cases or the rationale for uncertainty about what the architecture will
or won't support.

(2)
The security considerations section here appears to borrow text from the
SPRING WG charter, but then is actually less specific than the charter
about the anticipated mitigations that the SPRING architecture will
provide against known threats. Given the structure of this document I
would have expected detailed security requirements that any SPRING
solution will be required to meet.