[alto] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-21: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-alto-new-transport-21: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-alto-new-transport/



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

Thank you to Donald Eastlake for the SECDIR review.

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS feedback.

** Section 6.2.  Editorial. New text was added clarifying text to prescribe
that TIPS view URI must not be reused.  I would recommend being a clearer on
this language.

OLD
      A server MUST NOT use a URI for different TIPS views, either for
      different resources or different request bodies to the same
      resource.
NEW
A server MUST NOT use the same URI for different TIPS views, either for
different resources or different request bodies to the same      resource.

** Section 9.
   The security considerations (Section 15 of [RFC7285]) of the base
   protocol fully apply to this extension.  For example, the same
   authenticity and integrity considerations (Section 15.1 of [RFC7285])
   still fully apply;

Since ALTO TIPS is a new protocol mechanism is it possible to improve on the
TLS guidance in Section 8.3.5 of RFC7295 (from circa 2014)?  Specifically, can
RFC9325 be mandated?