Subject: [CDNi] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 11:26:22 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-control-triggers-11: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

= Section 5.1.8 =

Name: staleresourcetime

         Description: The length of time for which the dCDN guarantees
         to keep a completed Trigger Status Resource.  After this time,
         the dCDN SHOULD delete the Trigger Status Resource and all
         references to it from collections.

I'm not clear on why this is a SHOULD rather than a MUST. If the dCDN
tells the uCDN it's going to delete resources after a specified period of
time, why shouldn't it follow through on that? For a uCDN that relies on
resources not sticking around after a specified period of time (because
of security or competitive concerns), doesn't this need to be a firm
requirement so that the uCDN doesn't have to issue purge requests to be
sure that its resources get deleted?

= Section 8.1 =

I had the same confusion as Ben and the secdir reviewer concerning
whether TLS is always required to use or not. If there are cases in which
TLS is not mandatory to use, then I think this should be phrased as a
SHOULD with the exceptions clearly enumerated. For example, it's not
clear to me whether the only exception is environments where equivalent
protections are afforded by a different protocol, or if just being within
a single administrative domain is considered protection enough (not sure
I agree with the latter).

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

= General =

I think the examples in the document should use https URIs.

= Section 3 =
"Trigger Status Resources belonging to a uCDN MUST NOT
   be visible to any other CDN.  The dCDN could, for example, achieve
   this by offering different collection URLs to each uCDN, and/or by
   filtering the response based on the uCDN with which the HTTP client
   is associated."

Using different URLs for different uCDNs is not sufficient for this,
correct? I think the "and/or" needs to be just "and".

= Section 4.1 =
I don't understand the difference between when status is used in quotes
and not in quotes, e.g., 'Once processing has started the "status" MUST
be "active"' vs. 'once the CI/T Command is complete, the status MUST be
set to "complete" or "failed"'.

= Section 4.3 =
s/requires no processing in the dCDN, its status MUST NOT be
changed/requires no processing in the dCDN. Its status MUST NOT be
changed/

= Section 5.1.1 =

"Name: cdn-path

         Description: The CDN Provider Identifiers of CDNs that have
         already accepted the CI/T Command."
        
I find the phrase "already accepted" somewhat confusing, since a uCDN is
supposed to insert its own on ID here, and in that sense hasn't
"accepted" anything, but is making the request itself.

= Section 8.3 =
s/parties other party than the authorised dCDN/parties other than the
authorised dCDN/