[Idr] Deb Cooley's No Objection on draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-19: (with COMMENT)

[Deb Cooley via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Deb Cooley has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth-19: No Objection

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-idr-link-bandwidth/



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

Thanks to Ivaylo Petrov for their secdir review.

Section 6, para 1:  This specification points to RFC 4360, which points to RFC
1997, which says that Security Issues are not discussed. I'm guessing it isn't
that part of the RFC 4360 Sec Con section that is being referred?  RFC 4360
does also have a short note on the need for a 'transitive trust relationship
back to the source of the information' and that the mechanism for that
relationship is out of scope. If this concept is still an issue, perhaps it
should be in 'Operational Considerations?

Section 6, para 2: I am unfamiliar with how a policy can filter out private
information.  But maybe this is clear to the users that will use the
specification.

Section 7:  While I like sayings, I don't think it is quite the right thing in
a specification.  Please replace 'ships in the night' phrase.