Re: [ippm] Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kathleen,

In resolving Alissa's Comment, we will add a full paragraph from RFC 7312,
including the reference to the LMAP Framework. I believe we covered
network operator's sensitive information in sections 7 and 8 of the 
Framework.

RFC 2679 and RFC 2680 both depend on the original IPPM framework,
RFC 2330, which is limited to active measurement.

hope this helps,
Al 
________________________________________
From: Kathleen Moriarty [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 2:34 PM
To: The IESG
Cc: Bill Cerveny; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Kathleen Moriarty's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04: (with DISCUSS)

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04: Discuss

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-2680-bis/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

For the most part, this draft looks good, but the security considerations
haven't been updated from the previous release.  An important
consideration for traffic measurement is that it could be used for
reconnaissance activity.  By colecting results (passively or actively) of
measurement data, you learn more about the network and that can be used
in subsequent attacks.  Can you add this consideration into the text?

Thank you!