Subject: [Modern] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-modern-problem-framework-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 08:59:08 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-modern-problem-framework-03: 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-modern-problem-framework/

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

(0) For the benefit of non-modern readers, changing the title or at least
making it clear that "modern" refers to an acronym, and later expanding and
explaining would be very nice.

(1)

The document mentions the need for authentication, integrity and
confidentiality when retrieving information.  However, I didn't see anything
related to verifying that in fact the CSP (for example) is the "proper
authority" -- IOW, how can the user requesting information verify that the CSP
is in fact the one responsible for the TN?  I'm thinking of the case where the
CSP was assigned a TN from the numbering authority (how is that verified?), and
also the portability case (4.2.3.1) where the "old CSP" is no longer
responsible for the user's service.

Given that this document is a framework, I obviously don't expect a solution. 
But I think validation of the assignment chain should be included for
consideration by future solutions.