Subject: [tram] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 06:12:23 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-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-tram-turn-server-discovery/

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

- 5.1: s/chance/change/

- I think section 9 covers all the bases in terms of what
might be done, but probably has to be a bit vague about what's
best to do and the consequences that follow. (For example,
with the reference to how RFC7250 "could be used.") I think it
might be a good idea to admit that we don't really yet know
the security implications of this mechanism, if widely
deployed.  However, I also admit that I'm unsure about this
since it's just very hard to know the security properties of
discovery of this kind ahead of time, so I'm not sure what
kind of text to suggest that'd be useful.