[dhcwg] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-10: 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-dhc-access-network-identifier/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 4.3.2

The name of an 802.11 access point can imply the users location with a
fair bit of precision, making it effectively count as location data. The
draft needs  more discussion of the privacy implications of that. 

-- 6: 
This section seems underspecified. There seems to be a missing discussion
about interdependencies among options. For example, For example, network
name is meaningless without the technology type. What is the minimum
needed to be coherent?


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

I support  Stephen's and Alissa's discusses, and look forward to their
resolution.

-- 4.3.1:
This mentions how to interpret the network name for 802.11, 3GPP, and
3GPP2 networks. Is the use of this sub-option limited to those technology
types? How should it be interpreted for other types?

-4.3.2, Access-Point Name
The paragraph refers to the MAC address of a device. Which device is it
talking about? (e.g. end-device, base station, DHCP relay)

-- 4.4.1:
[SMI] probably needs to be a normative reference.

-- 7, first sentence:
This seems to be making a MUST level requirement for servers that do not
implement this draft. Is this a new MUST, or is already specified
elsewhere? (If the latter, then citation?)

Editorial:

-- 1, paragraph 2, First sentence: 
Missing article for DHCP relay agent
s/add/adds/

-- 2, 2nd paragraph:
Lots of missing articles for MAG.

-- 3, SSID definition:
s/the IEEE/an IEEE/
s/one network to the other/ one network from another/

-- 5.1, reserved:
The reader’s “now” may be years from the authors' “now” :-) I suggest
something to the effect of "At the time of this writing"