[lamps] Paul Wouters' Yes on draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-16: (with COMMENT)

[Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile-16: Yes

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-lamps-lightweight-cmp-profile/



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

Thanks for this document. It is clear even though it is a tad long :-)
Some minor comments:

   Though CMP is a capable protocol it is so far not used very widely.
   The most important reason appears to be that the protocol offers a
   too large set of features and options.

I would say [citation needed] here...

In section 6:
        HTTP SHOULD be used and CoAP MAY be used

        File-based transfer MAY be used in case offline transfer is required.

I find these different levels of usage odd. Clearly devices have no real choice
here. If they can support HTTP, there is no need for CoAP. If they cannot do
HTTP and therefor can only do CoAP, there is no choice either. If they are
offline, clearly they cannot use anything but file based transfer. I would set
all of these to MAY ?

In section 6.1:

        the recommendations provided in [I-D.ietf-uta-rfc7525bis] SHOULD be
        considered.

"considered" is already a watered down version of "followed". So either use
MUST be considered or "SHOULD be followed" and not "SHOULD be considered"