Subject: [CDNi] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-18: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2016 11:07:28 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-18: 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-cdni-metadata/

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

The authors have proposed text to address my discuss comments (Thanks!),
so I am clearing it on the assumption that people will do the right
thing.  (See the document history for reference if needed.)

Substantive Comments:

- 4.1, example (applies to all examples of referenced objects): Given the
rather strong guidance to use TLS to move metadata around, shouldn't the
examples that show referenced objects use HTTPS URLs?

- 4.1.3, "paths" property: Am I correct to assume that _only_ the first
match is used?

- 7.4: If the Auth type registry is initially unpopulated, doesn't that
make the Auth property useless for the time being? Why even specify it
now?

- 8.1, 2nd bullet: Could this sort of attack be used to distribute
compromised content (e.g. malware) to  end users?

- 8.3: Couldn't lack of integrity protection enable theft-of-content, in
addition to DoS? For example, if a MiTM changes the ACLs for a piece of
content?

- 11.1, reference to 6706: This is another normative downref that does
not appear to have been called out in the IETF last call announcement. I
will leave it to the authors and AD to decide if that's okay.

Editorial Comments and Nits:

- General: I don't expect action on this in general, but this draft seems
to have a lot of repeated material, which makes it considerably longer
and harder to digest than necessary for the content. (Note that, for
_normative_ text, such redundancy makes future updates error prone, even
if the text is consistent now.)

- 3, first paragraph: I’m not sure what you mean by “aggregated” in this
context.

- 3.2, third paragraph, last sentence: The MUST seems unneeded. Please
consider simply saying " ... the dCDN processes the content request in
accordance with the rest of the metadata.

- 4, paragraph 5: The MUST seems unneeded. There's no choice to make
here;  this is simply the way CDNI metadata objects are encoded. (Recurs
in 6.4, which seems redundant to this section.)

- 4.1.2, "Note" in definition of Host property: I usually think of "Note"
to designate parenthetical or "sidebar" content. Please consider dropping
the "Note" prefix for text that contains 2119 keywords. (There are
multiple occurrences throughout.) 

- 7.1.x Do you expect IANA to do something with these subsections? I
don’t see this sort of detail in the IANA registry. Otherwise, they seems
to belong in the main body, not the IANA considerations.