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

["Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Suresh,

sounds all good! I’m happy to quickly resolve my discuss if the authors agree!

Mirja


> Am 11.02.2017 um 05:05 schrieb 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
>