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

Hi Alissa,

Thank you for your review!

We can replace
"DetNet is provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, does not
    directly raise any new privacy considerations."
with
"DetNet provides a Quality of Service (QoS), and as such, is not expected to
    directly raise any new privacy considerations."

I'm not sure what "references to new flow IDs and OAM tags should be 
removed"?

Could you point to the text that should be changed?

Thank you!
Janos

On 2/20/2019 4:39 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>
>
> 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