Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:51:42PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Ben, 
> 
> On 10/25/18, 8:22 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>     Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: 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-ospf-lls-interface-id/
>     
>     
>     
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     
>     Sending a new type of information to the peer usually involves a privacy
>     considerations analysis.  I don't expect there to be anything worrisome
>     here, but some text in the document indicating that the analysis has been
>     done would be reassuring.
> 
> Can you suggest some text? I was thinking:

I'm not sure that I could -- I don't have confidence that I understand the
system well enough to frame something in a complete and correct way.

>    Since the scope of the interface ID is limited to the advertising OSPF router 
>    uniquely identifying links, there are no privacy concerns associated with its
>    advertisement.

I wonder if there is a step missing to link these together -- that the
links are generally fixed and immobile, or that the scope of distribution
is limited to a set of trusted peers, perhaps?

Sorry I can't be more helpful...

-Benjamin