Re: [CCAMP] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-12: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 8 Jun 2015, at 8:22, Lou Berger wrote:

> Ben,
>   see below.
>
> On 5/26/2015 11:39 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-12: 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-ccamp-wson-signaling/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The security considerations say this document differs from 3473 only in
>> "specific information communicated". In general, a change in the
>> information carried can make a huge difference. I infer that the working
>> group believes that this specific information does not (I hold no opinion
>> on that),
> I think you have it right on both points.
>> but it would be good to state that explicitly.
>>
> How about:
> OLD
>  As such, this
>  document introduces no new security considerations to the existing
>  GMPLS signaling protocols.
> NEW
>  The specific additional information (optical resource and wavelength
> selection properties) is not viewed as
> substantively changing or adding to the security considerations of the
> existing  GMPLS signaling protocol mechanisms.
>
> Does this work for you?

Yes, Thanks!

Ben.