[DMM] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 03:47 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: dmm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dmm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18A3129CB0; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:47:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.43.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148721684794.31572.814060328381329269.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:47:27 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmm/pudaIgPMf9GDNzi84jZ1tF7eAFI>
Cc: max.ldp@alibaba-inc.com, draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids@ietf.org, dmm-chairs@ietf.org, dmm@ietf.org
Subject: [DMM] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dmm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: Distributed Mobility Management Working Group <dmm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmm/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm>, <mailto:dmm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 03:47:28 -0000
Ben Campbell 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The security considerations says some of these identifiers can carry sensitive information, and when they do you should encrypt. This leaves it to the reader to decide which might be sensitive. The draft should tell the reader which ones the working group thinks are sensitive, keeping in mind that if an identifier is sometimes sensitive, it usually needs to be treated as if always sensitive. (It's hard for deployed code to figure out when it is or isn't sensitive.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Stephen's, Alissa's, and Mirja's discusses. I especially agree that we should not standardize new identifiers without justifying each one. Section 5 says this document does not impact existing security mechanisms. But it does add new data elements, and acknowledges some of them may be sensitive. Thus I think the "does not impact" assertion needs some supporting discussion. Are the existing mechanisms still adequate? Why? There are a bunch of acronyms that would benefit from expansion on first mention.
- [DMM] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-42… Ben Campbell
- Re: [DMM] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dm… Ben Campbell
- Re: [DMM] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dm… Suresh Krishnan