Subject: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: (with COMMENT)

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:45:27 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: 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-rtgwg-routing-types/

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

It would be good to call out the elements that are identifiers in the security
considerations section as the ones that might have an impact on security and
privacy.  The text in 7950 is good, but just adding something to list the
identifiers or state that identifiers may be of concern would be an
improvement.  Thanks.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 18:01:10 +0200

Hi Kathleen,
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types/
This draft only contains the typedefs and not the leave instances.
The privacy considerations should be on the instances, so the typedef usage.
For example, the privacy considerations would be different if the 
instance is read only or read write.

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:02:33 -0400

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Benoit Claise <[email-masked]> wrote:
> For example, the privacy considerations would be different if the instance
> is read only or read write.

Thanks for the quick reply.  Could that be made clear instead of a
vague sentence in the Security Considerations then so the
considerations are understood (an minimal)?

Thanks,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:28:34 +0000

Hi Kathleen, 

On 10/11/17, 12:02 PM, "Kathleen Moriarty"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> Please refer to
>>>https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>> considerations section as the ones that might have an impact on
>>>security
>>> and

Are you familiar with the YANG language? Would it make it less vague if if
“data definitions” were replaced by “type definitions (i.e., typedef
statements)” and “security considerations” were replaced by “security and
privacy consideration”?

Thanks,
Acee

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:23:17 -0400

> statements)” and “security considerations” were replaced by “security and

Hi Acee,

Yes, that is a nice and simple improvement.

Thank you,
Kathleen

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:53:47 +0000

Hi Kathleen, 

>Yes, that is a nice and simple improvement.

Great - I will provide in the next update.

Thanks,
Acee