IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Detnet] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 20 February 2019 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FE012D826 for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mJlg1KzPR4qj for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.30.42]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92CBE12F19D for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:03:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw12.unifiedlayer.com (unknown [10.9.0.12]) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F962411CB for <detnet@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:39:42 -0700 (MST)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id wTyHgh6gCmds9wTyHgTiqa; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:39:42 -0700
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=biyJgNhai/3qguNSBWP9mSxu+vJ6ou/im/kGbrJDfoA=; b=JyvoFQDRunaemWV+m4nB7Fs3gN w8JisAcxinvAszWws6V7OkWOfVLCGp2m1+HI74WafhLxvhaqQRwgGtGGE+YrxS0abOgGmM6SiXsg9 UZWAqmu0GEdSsDh/JeavQfkwF;
Received: from pool-72-66-11-201.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([72.66.11.201]:56652 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1gwTyH-000Rmq-Hx; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 08:39:41 -0700
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: draft-ietf-detnet-architecture@ietf.org, detnet@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, detnet-chairs@ietf.org
References: <155067447797.31337.768983002923056061.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <40b28261-5f04-7fcd-4f4f-ce243f32a808@labn.net> <1AA376D8-DE94-4FAF-B9D2-CC4E155CEC85@cooperw.in>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <ec41b988-8f3c-4ae0-fc65-1269bf33f93e@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:39:40 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1AA376D8-DE94-4FAF-B9D2-CC4E155CEC85@cooperw.in>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------EE421D4EFAE6835F7E73AE8B"
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 72.66.11.201
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1gwTyH-000Rmq-Hx
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-72-66-11-201.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [72.66.11.201]:56652
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 8
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Org: HG=bhcustomer;ORG=bluehost;
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/BOuIWAZTnR823DDl67qGjWoGfdQ>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 16:03:21 -0000

On 2/20/2019 10:25 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 20, 2019, at 7:17 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net 
>> <mailto:lberger@labn.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alissa,
>>
>> Thanks for the comments - see below.
>>
>> On 2/20/2019 9:54 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-detnet-architecture-11: Discuss
>>>
>>> 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-detnet-architecture/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> = Section 6 =
>>>
>>> "DetNet is provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, does not
>>>    directly raise any new privacy considerations."
>>>
>>> This seems like a false statement given the possibility that DetNet 
>>> may require
>>> novel flow IDs and OAM tags that create additional identification and
>>> correlation risk beyond existing fields used to support QoS today.
>>
>> Based on the other work in the WG, I think "is not expected" is more 
>> accurate than "does not". This is based on the WG solutions for the 
>> DetNet data plane using existing IP (v4 or 6) headers or MPLS labels 
>> for flow identification.
>
> If that is the case then the references to new flow IDs and OAM tags 
> should be removed from the architecture.

sounds reasonable.  Can you point to the specific offending text?

Thanks,

Lou

>
>>
>> Would changing to "is not expected" address your concern?
>
> Combined with the above removals, that would work for me.
>
> Thanks,
> Alissa
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lou
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email