Subject: [Unbearable] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 08:17:06 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tokbind-https-14: 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-https/

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

Thank you for a well written and easily understood document - it is unusual to
be able to cover like this in such an easily understood manner.

I'd suggest looking at Tim Chown's excellent OpsDir review:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-tokbind-https-14-opsdir-lc-chown-2018-05-08/
, especially the bit about a "diagram of the relationship between the various
elements in a federated scenario"

Some text about what to do with a (hypothetical) status code 309 might be
helpful - this says it MUST be ignored; does this mean a -bis document if /
when it is released? Could the document describe how to decide if future 30x
codes are acceptible? Or it is clear that there will never be >308?.