[Taps] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-arch-18: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 04 September 2023 21:13 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-taps-arch@ietf.org, taps-chairs@ietf.org, taps@ietf.org, michawe@ifi.uio.no, michawe@ifi.uio.no
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <169386199472.56070.12706290883287567869@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2023 14:13:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/jC6l40kFbqC4-gDGRGmh7x4--sA>
Subject: [Taps] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-taps-arch-18: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-arch-18: 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/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-taps-arch/



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

** Section 3.1.
   It is RECOMMENDED that the default values for Properties are selected
   to ensure correctness for the widest set of applications,

Is there an opening here to stress “security by default” such that the
recommended default values not only ensure correctness but also security and
privacy for the end-user for the widest set of applications?

** Section 6.
   However, a Transport
   Services implementation can race different security protocols, e.g.,
   if the application explicitly specifies that it considers them
   equivalent.

I didn’t see any treatment in the earlier text on the “API” properties where an
application signals equivalence of security properties.  Could a cross
reference please be provided.

** Just as Éric Vyncke called out in his ballot, it was also not obvious to me
why this document has a PS status rather than informational.

[Taps] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker