Comment: draft-ietf-crisp-requirements-05.txt

[Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>]

Overall this is a very well-written spec.  One transport issue and two
questions about scope - perfectly reasonable answers are out of scope,
or already discussed and dismissed.

1.

The protocol MUST
   define one or more transport mechanisms for mandatory implementation.
                    ^congestion-aware or overload-aware

I realize that the transport choice could be UDP, but in that case,
congestion-aware would mean UDP without aggressive retransmission.
And in the case that that "transport" may be used here to mean a
higher layer protocol such as mail or http, then the term
overload-aware applies.

2.

Is it out of scope for there to be a requirement in the protocol for
the registry to be able to authenticate itself to the client, because
in some cases there could be falsified registries?

3. 

Is it out of scope for there to be a requirement on the protocol for
some support for authentication of the contact information?