[Insipid] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-12: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-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-marking/



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

Thank  you for a clear and well written document.

A rich version of this review is at:

Thank you for a clear and well-written document.

An HTML version of this review is at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D11687

Line: 124
I'm uncomfortable with the "operators need to" wording -- perhaps "operators
often have to", or "operators are often expected to"?

Line: 1555
The privacy implications of all of this seem large -- I think that it would be
really useful to make "Privacy" be its own section, and not a subsection of
Security Considerations.