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

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Good morning, Al.

Thanks very much for looking into my question as deeply as you did.
If you could write another draft on this, I think it would be very
helpful as others would better understand the problem and how metrics
may be used maliciously.  For this draft, could you add a sentence or
two into the security considerations to alert to the issue and then
the deeper explanation can come later?

Thank you,
Kathleen

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 7:46 AM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)
> ...
>> Since I have trouble distinguishing characterization from recon, I'm not
>> clear how to qualify recon and what to write to address your concern.
>>
>> We need a good idea here,
>> Al
>>
>> PS: I note that the Gen-ART review has caused us to write a new draft to
>> address comments more fully and appropriately. Perhaps examination of
>> recon providing obejctive differentiation from legit. net.
>> characterization, and what recommendations are possible (beyond "don't
>> engage in recon for evil purposes") could be studied more
>> fully in the timeframe of this new draft.   ???
>>
> And this is the URL for the draft (didn't have it while flying):
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-morton-ippm-2330-stdform-typep-00
>
> I should have mentioned that this draft intends to update the IPPM
> framework RFC, so it would be applicable to all active tests.
>
> Al
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen