Subject: [Unbearable] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-17: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:22:28 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tokbind-protocol-17: 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-tokbind-protocol/

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

Update (after reading draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation): Given different
negotiation mechanisms could be used, maybe it would make sense to say slightly
more about version handling in this doc as well, e.g. at least
explaining/requiring that version negotiation is done by the negotiation
protocol...

Maybe I'm just missing something but given the TokenBindingType and the
TB_ExtensionType share the same number space, how do I know if there is another
TokenBinding or and an TB_Extension following after the signature?

Nit:
Please spell out TPM (in sec 1).