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

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy 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 to Carsten Bormann for the ARTART review.

The shepherd writeup confirms that Proposed Standard is the requested status,
but doesn't indicate why that was chosen.  (It's fairly clear that this is a
protocol or even an applicability statement, but a sentence or two about that
would be great to include.)  The shepherd writeup is also substantially dated;
it's from mid-2021, and mentions a sponsoring AD who is no longer on the IESG.

Section 1 is "Introduction" yet makes a normative ("SHOULD") assertion, which
is peculiar.  If this is a new assertion, it should be in its own later
section; if it's imported from another TEEP document, I suggest expressing it
some other way ("generally required" or suchlike) so that this document isn't
seen as the normative one on this point.

The SHOULD near the top of Section 3 is bare, in the sense that it presents a
choice to implementers but no guidance about when it might be legitimate to
deviate from the recommended behavior.  I suggest adding at last a brief
discussion of this.  (At least I presume this is a new SHOULD; at first I read
this as if it's importing a SHOULD from Section 4.13 of RFC 9205, but there's
no SHOULD in that section.)

I have similar comments about the SHOULD in Section 6.2.  What if I use some
other response code?

I have the same question as Erik about timeouts.