Subject: [Anima] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-34: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 10:49:49 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra-34: 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-anima-bootstrapping-keyinfra/

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

Thanks for addressing Tom Petch's comments about the YANG.

Original COMMENT below.

------

I think this document would benefit from two concise lists, with notes about
which items in each list are defined in this document and which ones are not
defined: (1) what is operationally required of a manufacturer to support BRSKI,
and (2) what is operationally required of a domain owner to support BRSKI.

= Section 2.3.1 =

What precisely is meant by "TPM identification"? Could a citation be provided?

= Section 10.1 =

"The domain can maintain some privacy since it has not necessarily been
   authenticated and is not authoritatively bound to the supply chain."

What does this mean? That the domain can expect the manufacturer not to trust
the domainID because it hasn't been authenticated?

= Section 10.2 =

"The above situation is to be distinguished from a residential/
   individual person who registers a device from a manufacturer: that an
   enterprise/ISP purchases routing products is hardly worth mentioning.
   Deviations would, however, be notable."

What does the last sentence mean?