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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <> Thu, 25 October 2018 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED306130E5C; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O_keWL_JlKvt; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1145A120072; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:51:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1972; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540475504; x=1541685104; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Pf54eqPyGi1pSB9jnhYxTHD0Uf8AO1rsnpAZ68AuL1E=; b=UxtFNIPxmqrh94QCkx9nGZn8bxV7WyvjgQVsTpxQS9aBEUCvKoXimnVb HTaLtYy/56c32uZNF9681R0hhA60afPvdY7M4d9c6sK0Wub0ptmGaboXZ H9VqBcaL3FDnZpfytKyEYx990WWIAZwNTMkkXELCm85FQ5V4e6ME7hOML k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAC7ydFb/5tdJa1jDgsBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQEBgVEEAQEBAQELAYIEZn8oCoNriBiMGIFol0EUgWYLAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?jhEkCF4J5ITQNDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhTsGIxFFEAIBCBoCJgICAjAVEAIEAQ0?= =?us-ascii?q?FgyEBggEPpxyBLoQ+QIUeBYELilsXggCBOAwTgkyDGwIBAgGBKgELBwGDIjG?= =?us-ascii?q?CJgKIdoFqlBYJAoZmihUYgVKEdol7jGqJeAIRFIEmHThkWBEIcBVlAYJBgk+?= =?us-ascii?q?ISoUEOm8BiXUPF4EIgR8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,424,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="386803629"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Oct 2018 13:51:43 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9PDpgpq016613 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:51:43 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:51:42 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:51:42 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>, The IESG <>
CC: "" <>, Yingzhen Qu <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUbF1j4UjYPcg/BUig1Pn6aaXdlKUv+vgA
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:51:42 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 13:51:46 -0000

Hi Ben, 

´╗┐On 10/25/18, 8:22 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <>; 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
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    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:

   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