Subject: [dtn] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 05:35:12 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dtn-bpsec-18: 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-dtn-bpsec/

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

I support Mirja's and Benjamin's DISCUSSes.

Please respond to the Gen-ART review.

In Section 3.8:

"o  It is RECOMMENDED that designers carefully consider the effect of
      setting flags that either discard the block or delete the bundle
      in the event that this block cannot be processed.

   o  The BCB block processing control flags can be set independently
      from the processing control flags of the security target(s).  The
      setting of such flags SHOULD be an implementation/policy decision
      for the encrypting node."

Both of these uses of normative language seem inappropriate.