[Insipid] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-12: (with COMMENT)

"Kathleen Moriarty" <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 01 February 2017 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietf.org
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D52312958A; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:57:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.42.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148598262942.18688.17689106924752475566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:57:09 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/-PIgx2-ZqcgC5iD8XoqIPmSASjs>
Cc: insipid@ietf.org, insipid-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs@ietf.org, gsalguei@cisco.com
Subject: [Insipid] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <insipid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/insipid/>
List-Post: <mailto:insipid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:57:09 -0000

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-12: 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/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-insipid-logme-reqs/



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

In addition to Stephen's questions, I would like to see a little more
text in the following sentence of the Security Considerations section:
OLD:
   If a prior agreement to log
   sessions exists with the next hop network then the "log me" marker
   SHOULD NOT be removed.
NEW: (or something similar that ties this back to requirement 7)
   If a prior agreement to log 
   sessions, at a debugging or regression testing level for data, exists
with the next hop network then the "log me" marker
   SHOULD NOT be removed.

That requirement only shows up in one place (as far as I could see and I
think it would be helpful in the security considerations section as it
shows the limited scope of use besides the "trust domain" (name may be
changed?).

Note that I am balloting No Objection as this is part of the WG's charter
(also pointed out in the SecDir review).