Re: [DMM] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: (with DISCUSS)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

HI Mirja,

> On Feb 10, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: 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-dmm-4283mnids/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I would realy like to see the following changes in the security
> considerations section:
> OLD
> "If used in the MNID extension as defined in this
>   document, the packet including the MNID extension should be
> encrypted
>   so that personal information or trackable identifiers would not be
>   inadvertently disclosed to passive observers."
> NEW
> "If used in the MNID extension as defined in this
>   document, the packet including the MNID extension SHOULD be
> encrypted
>   so that personal information or trackable identifiers would not be
>   inadvertently disclosed to passive observers.”

Is this just for changing the "should" to upper case? I think that makes sense.

> Or even better make it a MUST? Is there a reason for only having a
> SHOULD?

Authors, any specific reason for this to be a SHOULD?

> 
> as well as the following change:
> OLD
> "Moreover, MNIDs containing sensitive identifiers might only be used
>   for signaling during initial network entry. "
> NEW
> "Moreover, MNIDs containing sensitive identifiers MUST only be used
>   for signaling during initial network entry and MUST NOT be leaked to
>   other networks.”

The statement in OLD: is just a statement of fact that in some networks use temporary identifiers for reattachment and they use long term (and hence sensitive) identifiers only at initial attach. I don’t think it makes sense to change this to 2119 language.

Thanks
Suresh