Subject: [CDNi] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-11: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 05:54:18 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-11: 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-cdni-control-triggers/

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

- I agree with the discuss points about use of TLS.

- I think it'd be better if you clarified that by
"mutually authenticated" you mean TLS client auth and
TLS server auth and not e.g. HTTP BASIC plus TLS server
auth.

- I think a statement to the effect that the mechanisms
for access control are dCDN-specific (for now at least)
might be a good addition. I'm guessing that someone
might want to use some form of OAuth later on (or is
doing so now) so part(s) of that might be a thing to
standardise later.