Subject: [mile] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:24:29 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mile-xmpp-grid-09: 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-mile-xmpp-grid/

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

Please respond to the Gen-ART review.

I'm not quite seeing what part of this is a standards-track specification. The
workflow in Section 4 is described as "typical" but not normative and the
exchanges listed in sections 5 and 6 are listed as examples. For a
standards-track specification I would have expected something more like
"Implementations of XMPP-Grid adhere to the following workflow ..." and for
service discovery and pub-sub to be described as *the* way to do those things
in XMPP-Grid, not just illustrated by examples. Otherwise this seems like it
could be an informational document.

In the subsections of Section 8.3 I can't readily discern why some of the
requirements that relate to protections outside the protocol stack are listed
with normative keywords and some are not. It seems like none of them having
normative weight would make more sense, or perhaps there is an explanation I'm
missing?

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:42:47 +0000

Hi Alissa,

Thank you for your comments.  Quick comments on a part of your review.

Yes, I will chase that.

> could be an informational document.

I need to discuss this with the WG, but I think I agree that the document needs an editorial pass to make sure that it is either purely Informative or that it clearly states extra requirements as suitable for a Proposed Standard.

Thank you,
Alexey