Subject: [http-auth] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 18:57:53 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpauth-mutual-10: 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-httpauth-mutual/

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

Most of my comments have already been covered by others. 

I agree with others that the introduction really needs more editing.

I share the question about the IPR section. In general, IETF stream
documents are not expected to contain licensing language beyond that in
the TLP. OTOH, that's about copyright, and this is clearly not--but I
wonder why the existing IPR disclosure is not sufficient. If the section
is to remain,  I suggest making sure this has been reviewed by someone
from the IETF trust prior to publication.

- Section 16: I don't think 2119 MUSTs are appropriate for IANA
instructions.
-- I think the registration policy you are looking for is "Specification
Required".