mcr
commented
2 years ago "Thank you for not pushing back"
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/kj8EoevLNUa7AHjVvW9DK8E_ZTw/ (Eric on section 16) https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/Qki4OIMaYFXKtMdCUKiuCSkEXhs/ (Thomas on section 10)
** Section 10.
[Roman's comment on -13]
I found the level of detail on this section on freshness out of place and inconsistent with the level of abstraction found in the rest of the test. In most other section, generic interaction of roles, artifacts, their associated topologies, and high level security properties was noted. This section delves into specific implementation choices. In particular, is the WG sure that it needs all of the details of Section 10.3. Even among all of the Section in 10.*, this stands out. It doesn't seem to provide enough detail to be create interoperability but goes beyond simply introducing the concept.
[Roman's comment on -15] Thanks for the extra paragraph to explain why this section is here. I will confess that I still don't understand why these details are here and stand by my original comment. It's much more than I would have expected for an architecture (especially considering the extra material in Section 16/Appendix -- 10 pages/almost 20% of the document is devoted to time issues). If the WG feels like it needs it, I won't push back. However, if this is the watermark of the level of detail, let's make sure that there is equal treatment for other security issues too. See my feedback on Section 12.