Subject: [Drip] WGLC for draft-ietf-drip-arch

From: Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 09:57:22 -0500

Hi,

This email starts a WGLC for  draft-ietf-drip-arch available here:
 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-drip-arch-10

Please review the document and provide your feed back / comments by March
9.

Yours,
Med and Daniel

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: "shuaiizhao(Shuai Zhao)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 17:03:17 +0000

There is a late submission, so the latest version is https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-drip-arch-11

Best,
Shuai

From: Tm-rid <[email-masked]> on behalf of Daniel Migault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 6:57 AM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Drip] WGLC for draft-ietf-drip-arch(Internet mail)

Hi,

Please review the document and provide your feed back / comments by March 9.

Yours,
Med and Daniel

--
Daniel Migault
Ericsson

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:46:56 +0100

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:57:22AM -0500,
 Daniel Migault <[email-masked]> wrote 

> Please review the document and provide your feed back / comments by March

I've read -11. Drones are clearly not my area of expertise. The draft
is hard to follow, with a number of acronyms I'm not familiar
with. Some are in section "3.2.  Abbreviations", some are defined at
first use. There is certainly a reason for this difference but it does
not help the reader.

Also, I have the feeling that the draft is quite vague on many
aspects, and it mixes architectural issues with details which are very
interesting (such as the discussion about sizes of cryptographic keys
and signatures) but may be not for an "architecture" document. Also,
I'm glad there are rationales for some decisions (why HHIT and not HIT
or CGA) but they should be more separated from the specification of
the choosen architecture.

Regarding the claim of vagueness, let's take the DNS part as an
example. "These public information registries can use secure DNS
transport (e.g.  DNS over TLS)" Is it to become a MAY in the future
protocol? There is no today an IETF standard about DNS-over-TLS for
authoritative name servers. Today, it looks like Hand-waving. And why
DNSSEC disappeared? (It was in -08.)