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

"Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 19 February 2015 07:58 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150219075817.15928.99963.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 23:58:17 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/drinks/Q-ur4Szr5mO2_FFaWlRZ2K1WvaE>
Cc: drinks@ietf.org, draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap.all@tools.ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [drinks] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-protocol-over-soap-07: (with COMMENT)

Barry Leiba 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Section 4 --

   Implementations compliant with this document MUST use HTTP 1.1
   [RFC2616] or higher.  Also, implementations SHOULD use persistent
   connections.

You could remove "compliant with this document".  But more importantly,
the "SHOULD" is not an interoperability requirement.  I'd rather see
"implementations should use persistent connections for the performance
reasons specified above."  But this is non-blocking, and there's no need
to discuss it.

Also, RFC 2616 is obsolete.  The current reference for HTTP 1.1 is RFC
7230, and this reference needs to be changed to that.

-- Section 5 --
I support Stephen's DISCUSS here.  Further on what he says in his
comment, this MUST requirement locks you into Digest for all time,
regardless of what other authentication mechanisms might be defined and
deployed later.  That doesn't seem wise.

If the real point here is that there are two mechanisms (Basic and
Digest), and you want to use Digest because you don't want Basic, then
maybe that's how you should say it: ban Basic rather than requiring
Digest.

[drinks] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf… Barry Leiba
[drinks] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf… Barry Leiba