[ippm] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: 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-ippm-6man-pdm-option/



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

I support Warren's discuss and comments and have a few additional
comments to add.

Kind of related to Warren's discuss, I kept looking for a limitation to
the scope for this work in the draft and didn't get to one until the end
of the security considerations section.  The text there wasn't quite
clear enough for me.  It seems that this might only be used for small
periods of time while troubleshooting, is that correct?  It also seems
like this has to be end-to-end, is that right?  And if it does need to be
end-to-end, is the user aware of this troubleshooting so that they are
not sending traffic that contains sensitive data that should remain
confidential (security or privacy implications may also exist if this is
not the case).

If the scope were limited, I would not have as many security concerns. 
Network reconnaissance may or may not be an issue.  I don't think it is,
but I need to better understand the scope of use for this option.

nit:
s/IPSec/IPsec/g