[dtn] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-10: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc-10: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-default-sc/



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

Thanks for the new Section 5.4.  I would suggest not referring to the DTN
working group as a review body, as it might not exist forever.  The guidance
you publish here should still be valid even after the working group closes.

My original comments, for posterity:

I support Francesca's first DISCUSS point.

Since the shepherd writeup was written earlier this year, six revisions have
been posted, the IESG has rotated (so the responsible AD in the writeup has
changed), two authors have been added, two new registries were proposed (the
writeup claims there are none), and a considerable amount of text has been
added or changed.  The current writeup thus feels markedly stale; I suggest
that in such situations, the shepherd should consider updating the writeup so
that it appears to be more current when it gets to the IESG.

Appendix B could be simplified a bit:

   Amy Alford of the Johns Hopkins University
   Applied Physics Laboratory contributed useful review and analysis of
   these security contexts.