IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lmap] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-16

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Tue, 31 January 2017 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Original-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lmap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4B9129491 for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:15:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=Fn8b9S9x; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=Uw2hqWEU
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z7HSxDWyJ-1R for <lmap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0C3B129488 for <lmap@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:15:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2791722F8F; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:15:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:15:53 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=VWFS596yIGVLs8U +8HmiQv/CAoE=; b=Fn8b9S9xVF5MTd4cUtlULm4jOCsWMd0xgCdwUAPp5bPrOyx DjHaa0oXBlhdjRGjnHnY8OnxymAF0FqbtQld5SpkO4hBTvtoWxFHmPqQWS7FsV26 Onk7KQ8qOguRzBDCIA/t3/Cutfr/RNZghOg4Aih/5ori1Xw5CzEfm43WfHZ0=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=VWFS596yIGVLs8U+8HmiQv/CAoE=; b=Uw2hqWEU7WvxlFZWMiNP k4DU+G7iT3Z03MOZcsjYi9RnMWO9eneDCSv9Hw4HUJ7afwaG/LnWOKud+xhyButg ZdfgimY0qTDfhV5D1/Vi9Y5pDhbaTkZcaq2+uFMswlusIYi0vx2AhBZ8FhQr8OPQ 4ihXg86LJYIwn4keso8rnLY=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:GZyQWAu54f8UxktN97Q1G6R85PtvYKRefK7s4ybtn-U5hJu70PvnZA>
X-Sasl-enc: ByXkeitH78obAkCQunkQY82gAaULRzCl1Uj1rkcjRpJJ 1485872152
Received: from dhcp-10-150-9-142.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.83]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DC2627E51C; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:15:52 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <20170131094427.GA59387@elstar.local>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:15:52 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8456A767-C0A1-447D-959C-9E090AB4B50B@cooperw.in>
References: <2CB94EA6-A5F9-4770-9E76-0C7E8676E9CF@cooperw.in> <20170124160720.GB36955@elstar.local> <31441568-4107-4D08-9D7C-99C6A71F0FE0@cooperw.in> <20170126085354.GA43055@elstar.local> <80A34C5F-7E20-41CF-99DF-2222399CFF07@cooperw.in> <20170131094427.GA59387@elstar.local>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lmap/bud6NCG3ZPDiQ_liqGg3RpjY_34>
Cc: lmap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [lmap] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-lmap-information-model-16
X-BeenThere: lmap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Large Scale Measurement of Access network Performance <lmap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lmap/>
List-Post: <mailto:lmap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lmap>, <mailto:lmap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:15:54 -0000

> On Jan 31, 2017, at 4:44 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> 
> 
> The status reports go to the LMAP controller, so I do not really see
> why there is a specific risk since the controller has access to the
> device ID anyway.

I still am missing what is the rationale for sending the device ID in the status reports. I thought the agent ID was meant to uniquely identify the MA.

Alissa

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email