IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)

"Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com> Thu, 06 December 2018 10:46 UTC

Return-Path: <jie.dong@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B4112D4F1; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 02:46:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qlmlmdZbtXkq; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 02:46:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4AD7126CC7; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 02:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 6D3D68EFA04D2; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:46:28 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:46:30 +0000
Received: from lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) by lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1591.10; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:46:29 +0000
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml707-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.56) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1591.10 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:46:29 +0000
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 18:46:21 +0800
From: "Dongjie (Jimmy)" <jie.dong@huawei.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community@ietf.org>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUjSJzPSQtikt4SEa1T2KsV9usFaVxeTsQ
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 10:46:20 +0000
Message-ID: <76CD132C3ADEF848BD84D028D243C927C2EC9237@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <154407321352.31918.4126269408085837829.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <154407321352.31918.4126269408085837829.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.130.151.75]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/2EbmpWcUcPCeFF-hyxw-cfbb7yw>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 10:46:36 -0000

Hi Ben, 

Thanks for your review and comments. 

We will fix the boilerplate in next version.

As for the security considerations, we will discuss among coauthors and come back to you.

Best regards,
Jie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Campbell [mailto:ben@nostrum.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 1:14 PM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou
> <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; opsawg-chairs@ietf.org; Tianran Zhou
> <zhoutianran@huawei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org
> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community-11: 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-opsawg-ipfix-bgp-community/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Please expand IPFIX in the abstract.
> 
> §2: Is there a reason not to use the new boilerplate from RFC 8174?
> 
> §8:
> - "does not directly introduce any new security issues"
> What does "directly" mean in context? Should we be concerned about indirectly
> introduced issues?
> 
> -2nd paragraph: I am skeptical of a claim that, because private information
> might be available from other vectors, a mechanism has not introduced new
> privacy issues. Is there no possibility that someone who had not deduced
> privacy-sensitive information by the other means could now get it via this
> mechanism?
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email