Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 22 April 2015 22:21 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eman@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 070E01B36E1; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9E7oF64bvl5x; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D0821B3A9F; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 640A0BEDF; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:21:51 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fTZL2l-wSL1b; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:21:50 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.46.17.62]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D52CBEDE; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:21:50 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <55381EFD.60400@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:21:49 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <20150422192021.30691.70336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5538109D.1070103@cisco.com> <DBA94551-493C-4FFD-8C9F-49D9A3D2351C@nostrum.com> <FC8494B3-6774-4E9F-B04C-5483F75E8061@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <FC8494B3-6774-4E9F-B04C-5483F75E8061@lucidvision.com>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eman/XxR2icTEzXcQGnDIT2QZgcLqNx8>
Cc: eman-chairs@ietf.org, eman@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [eman] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-eman-applicability-statement-10: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: eman@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the Energy Management Working Group <eman.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/eman/>
List-Post: <mailto:eman@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman>, <mailto:eman-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:21:59 -0000


On 22/04/15 23:20, Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>> > " [RFC7460] section X and [RFC7461] section Y mention that power monitoring and management MIBs may have certain privacy implications. Applications of this spec that use other mechanisms (e.g. YANG) may have similar implications, which are beyond this scope of this document. There may be additional privacy considerations specific to each use case; this document has not attempted to analyze these. “
> 	This is a (thankfully) simple, and reasonable approach. My only question is why are we mentioning Yang here? The WG only produced SNMP MIBs.
> 
> 	Would this fix resolve Stephen’s comments as well?

Basically, yes. I think a truth-in-advertising statement like that
would be useful.

Thanks,
S.