[OSPF] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: (with COMMENT)

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ospf-node-admin-tag-07: 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-node-admin-tag/



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


- I think Alavaro and Brian make some good points. I'll be
interested in how that discussion turns out.

- Good to see that you recognise that even opaque tag values
can expose sensitive information (the attacker isn't limited
in how they are allowed interpret what they see). However,
given that we recognise that confidentiality ought be provided
sometimes, isn't there an onus on us to actually provide some
usable way to get that service? If so, then who is looking at
that problem? If not, then why is that acceptable? (This isn't
a discuss as I don't think there is any PII or similar
information being transferred, and the confidentiality
requirement here really relates to network topology etc. But
please do correct me if one of these tags could be PII-like
and I'll make this a discuss if that's better.)