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

"Dawes, Peter, Vodafone Group" <Peter.Dawes@vodafone.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 14:59 UTC

From: "Dawes, Peter, Vodafone Group" <Peter.Dawes@vodafone.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-12: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSfM3D08izgXe000KdNBB8jAq3kaFVz4/w
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 14:59:44 +0000
Message-ID: <4A4F136CBD0E0D44AE1EDE36C4CD9D99C8C7359E@VOEXM31W.internal.vodafone.com>
References: <148598262942.18688.17689106924752475566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <148598262942.18688.17689106924752475566.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/QHPRTnga9BkK38M90fYV2X_v_Hk>
Cc: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>, "insipid-chairs@ietf.org" <insipid-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs@ietf.org>, "gsalguei@cisco.com" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-12: (with COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hello Kathleen, 
Thanks for the comment, we can ensure that the solution draft is clear that logging agreements between peer operators are for troubleshooting and regression testing purposes.

Regards,
co-authors

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
> Sent: 01 February 2017 20:57
> To: The IESG
> Cc: draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs@ietf.org; insipid-chairs@ietf.org;
> gsalguei@cisco.com; insipid@ietf.org
> Subject: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-
> 12: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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).
>

[Insipid] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on dra… Kathleen Moriarty
Re: [Insipid] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on… Dawes, Peter, Vodafone Group