[bess] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-11: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-11: 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-bess-mvpn-mib/



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

A general comment that we've been making on lots of documents in this
space is that it would be nice to be in a place where the acronym "VPN"
implies transport encryption.  It's unclear that it's appropriate to request
changes to this specific document toward that end, though.

Perhaps I'm confused, but "mvpnAdvtPeerAddr" appears in the security
considerations in the list of address-related objects that may have
privacy/security impact.  That list is predicated on being "objects with a
MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible", but all the instances of
mvpnAdvtPeerAddr I found in the body text were marked as not-accessible.
Similarly for mvpnMrouteCmcastGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs,
mvpnMrouteNextHopGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs, and
mvpnMrouteNextHopAddr.  (Incidentally, why ar mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs
and mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs plural with the final 's'?)

Perhaps using subsections to separate the various tables' descriptions
would aid readability.