Subject: [CDNi] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-21: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 23:56:22 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-uri-signing-21: 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-uri-signing/

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

The IANA Considerations section creates two registries under Specification
Required rules.  RFC 8126 recommends that the defining document include advice
to the designated experts (thank you for volunteering, by the way) about how to
evaluate new submissions, but none are included here.  Are any appropriate?

This seems to be my pet peeve this week, but I'm wondering about most of the
SHOULDs in this document.  Why aren't they MUSTs?  Or in the alternative, could
we include some guidance about when an implementer might legitimately choose to
deviate from what the SHOULD says to do?

I support Roman's DISCUSS position about Section 1.3.