Subject: [homenet] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:02:35 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-11: 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-homenet-dncp/

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

Update:

The new version made some changes to appendix B, but at least for the
transport security section, it's not clear to me if this means the
_section_ is optional or that _transport_security_ is optional. If the
former, then I'm concerned people may take that as a license not to think
about transport security requirements. Would it make sense to make the
section required, even if took the form of "This profile does not require
transport security because of <reasons>"?

Previous comment:

Thanks for the new appendix B. How should we interpret the "(optional)"
tag on some of the sections of that appendix? For example, does for the
Transport Security section, does (optional) mean the section is optional,
that transport security is optional, or both?