[Teep] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-14: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teep-otrp-over-http-14: 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-teep-otrp-over-http/



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

Thanks for working on this specification. I haven't find any TSV related issues
in this specification in my review.

I have comments/questions that I believe would improve the document if
addressed -

# it says -

   and a "Trusted Application Manager (TAM)" on the server side) SHOULD
   themselves run inside a TEE

  why is it necessary to use normative language here? is this something this
  spec describing first for the TEEP architecture? It is however not the
  intention of this specification to define TAM placement, or?

# it says -

     Since POST responses without explicit freshness information are
     uncacheable (see Section 9.3.3 of [RFC9110]), no Cache-Control header is
     needed.

  Should this not say -

     Since POST responses without explicit freshness information are
     uncacheable (see Section 9.3.3 of [RFC9110]), hence Cache-Control header
     MUST NOT be used.

  I.e. use normative language to avoid the use of that particular header? also
  explains if a Cache-Control header would generate error.