[dtn] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-25: (with COMMENT)

[Robert Wilton via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Robert Wilton has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-25: 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-dtn-bpsec/



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

Thank you for this document, this is somewhat outside of my area of expertise
and has previously been reviewed by the IESG.

A couple of minor comments related to section 3.6:

(1) When reading section 3.6, I was questioning whether explicit or arbitrary
length CBOR arrays were used.  I found that this behavior was only clarified
once I got to section 4.  From a document structure perspective, I wonder
whether it wouldn't be better for section 4 to be part of section 3.

(2) In some places, I was surprised that a CBOR array is used in place of a
CBOR map.  E.g., both in the Security Context Parameters and the Security
Results.  Is there a reason why CBOR arrays was chosen here over maps?

3) For security context flags, it states: "Implementations MUST set reserved
bits to 0 when writing this field".  However, I find that somewhat confusing
given how CBOR encodes integers and only encodes what is required and
effectively leaves out all most significant 0 bits from the encoding.  Perhaps
this text could be clarified?

Regards,
Rob