[lmap] FW: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-lmap-framework-12: (with COMMENT)

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Just wanted to highlight the IESG's assumption that LMAP protocols will describe how to meet the privacy goals, ie not just say 'read Section 8 of the framework'.
Just making sure that the protocol people are ok with this!

Privacy is mentioned in http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-starkcarey-lmap-protocol-criteria-01 in the context of security 

---
Stephen Farrell's IESG comment:

> - general: Thanks for the significant consideration of privacy, the 
> draft has a quite good analysis. I want to check though that the plan 
> is that other lmap drafts, esp protocol drafts, will in fact describe 
> (and maybe mandate) ways to meet privacy goals, and will not simply 
> refer to section 8 of this and tell developers to go figure it out. If 
> that latter was the plan/expectation, then we'd be better off 
> discussing that now, rather than as a late surprise for the WG. I 
> assume though that the plan is rather to try make the lmap protocol 
> something that can really be used in a privacy sensitive manner and 
> that defaults to that where possible, in which case we'll not have that problem.

Al's reply:
I think it's expected that the protocol design(s) will embrace the relevant mitigations described in section 8, just as they should take-on all relevant specifications of the framework. So, the answer is yes, IMO.