[sidr] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Alissa Cooper" <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10: Discuss

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-sidr-publication/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the upgrade path for the future when new versions of this
protocol get published? How are clients and servers meant to agree on
which version to use?


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

(Hit the send button too quickly, sorry for the multiple emails.)

Although I understand why Section 6 says transport security is not
strictly required, given that the authentication and authorization
mechanisms that this protocol relies on are outside of the scope here,
isn't it possible that clients and servers may be exchanging cookies or
other headers in the course of using this protocol that would benefit
from transport encryption? It seems like mentioning that transport
security may still be beneficial although not required might be a good
idea.