Subject: [sacm] Alissa Cooper's Abstain on draft-ietf-sacm-requirements-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:27:28 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sacm-requirements-16: Abstain

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-sacm-requirements/

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

I too don't see the particular value of having this published as an RFC, but
understand that the WG may view it differently. I offer the comments below for
what they're worth.

I think the document sows confusion in its use of the terms "transport
protocol" and "transfer protocol." They appear to be used interchangeably
(maybe? I'm not actually entirely sure), there seem to be claims that HTTP is a
L4 transport protocol, and although the terms "SACM transport protocol" and
"SACM transfer protocol" are used and vaguely defined in the draft, they are
not defined in the terminology document. If this document goes forward it seems
like an edit pass to clarify what is meant with these terms each time they are
used, and their relationship to what we typically think of as a "transport
protocol," is warranted.

I would have thought target location information would be specifically called
out in Section 5.2.

I have not seen a response to the Gen-ART review.