[Unbearable] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-17: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-17: 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/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-tokbind-protocol/



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

Sorry for spamming but one more update (after reading draft-ietf-tokbind-https):
In sec 3: "This message  MUST be sent in the client's first application
protocol message." Why is that a generic requirement for all uses of token
binding and not just for HTTPS?

Update (after reading draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation): Given different
negotiation mechanisms could be used, maybe it would make sense to say slightly
more about version handling in this doc as well, e.g. at least
explaining/requiring that version negotiation is done by the negotiation
protocol...

Maybe I'm just missing something but given the TokenBindingType and the
TB_ExtensionType share the same number space, how do I know if there is another
TokenBinding or and an TB_Extension following after the signature?

Nit:
Please spell out TPM (in sec 1).