[Ioam] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-ioam-00-02: (with COMMENT)

"Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 16 February 2017 02:04 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <148721067522.31425.13222402850556334613.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:04:35 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ioam/awJ1cFkEDCdR3CPXajZ0eY9kRvs>
Cc: aretana@cisco.com, ioam@ietf.org, ioam-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [Ioam] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-ioam-00-02: (with COMMENT)

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-ioam-00-02: 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.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ioam/



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

I don't think this is ready for external review but Stephen is holding
the block already.

If this really is meant to specify a generic, extensible data format that
one could stick pretty much any data into, then I agree that this has the
same drawbacks as SPUD/PLUS. If the charter described a limited set of
specific data fields to be standardized, then a determination could be
made about whether the privacy/security risks could be adequately
constrained with requirements related to such constraints reflected in
the charter. This seems like a fundamental point that needs to be
resolved.

[Ioam] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ie… Alissa Cooper