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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

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?