[OPSAWG] Ted Lemon's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-04: (with COMMENT)

"Ted Lemon" <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 16:05 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150219160506.28882.91163.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:05:06 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/4b_PlZX-TBuOh6_BEwAFEKxTm8k>
Cc: opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases.all@ietf.org
Subject: [OPSAWG] Ted Lemon's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-04: (with COMMENT)

Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases-04: 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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm dropping my DISCUSS since Kathleen raised the same point with a lot
more detail than I did.   FTR, I support Kathleen's DISCUSS.   Here is
the text of my former DISCUSS:

I was surprised to see no mention of the specific security requirements
of the various use cases described here.   E.g., the medical use case
makes no mention at all of security.   While in general security is
required in all cases, I think there are differences in the level of
security that is required for the various use cases described here, and I
wonder if the authors considered this, and if so, why it wasn't
mentioned.

I don't necessarily want to delay the document's publication pending a
resolution to this issue, but I'd like to have a quick discussion about
it.

[OPSAWG] Ted Lemon's No Objection on draft-ietf-o… Ted Lemon