Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12: (with COMMENT)
Mahend Negi <mahend.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 19 December 2019 16:12 UTC
Return-Path: <mahend.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pce@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7511200F1; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:12:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 taHW4n25GpsI; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22c.google.com (mail-oi1-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEA281200A4; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22c.google.com with SMTP id a67so3097334oib.6; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:12:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kMOjF5UCKo/tratRCaB91gCJLmnmTe1LVAVVEaqkiEE=; b=DykHrYNN6yzp1wo/08C9CkuiodCnes2BVCcS0IvcLC3zDafcc20UCBSWeBcHiC2VrE m5UF/oMmntol/x+lTIvf2imK+319uFD7mavDsvyglz5l3P4n65Wa9OL1SIDPBS5fydFk DenSpONdszbreQIBKHeoUwwN0QYQS5mG6tSxJQxSpYYd5s9bmJCbKoPsg7MOZyC9s1fa IidqZMaaE1BmCvvFLSIfs/n0NKyAjXJQq/f4WT/gEgiP1YZRVCYzCuUQ1/HwauwuXZ4b 2+Sfs2Mll195ktDS3RZXcGYL2IanpNm0RKVOaf6Btmdy8wwjP3bq79q/9K4QfMHudj9+ iRkQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kMOjF5UCKo/tratRCaB91gCJLmnmTe1LVAVVEaqkiEE=; b=irqKgWkG/MZIZ8Lhl/aHomdLcOgF0F4csIWiB8d8YXTivQ6CsOcSa5x42TOMeTFxZ0 7iA3XaZs6a+sXqrhD1bGRwQYQcmfJgebbP4gTnmWr9t7byGFbsbtuxIe2bZmmi2+B5wS 6n0BScaHdm+Zl0Pzd1R5ipxxuDpn+5efuVD6s8SlR/8bH4oziO1q1VuTXLsWynUU0bkJ hYGA/dq9k+rxPIkxsPmQeo+2R8ytqNLJNyS0LnPqyAewuxdYfp4CKwkcFSoZsWGkO9yq woyUl2puyO9ZRcdtnE1vIEFyXH17qnqlwYo3cfUS8eArASZVPfUknOtWL/hB8eDDqGoI DoSA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUWrn8xxjorh75aIDFzvjtdwtLRzFPotbtnU9wvOK9aJZn4zTYd icMhfD6bGAGx7Mf0sjSgZ34MCZ3HzsL8Kw+k2WAWLKxmJ44=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzOwZIJ1RKCTJEz7wbRpyG4HvW4J94KUGpryH3DjUiGbTNhR2EuIN2fwHmBevdZTx2hxFZnGfNXPImx/dAqs4M=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:530e:: with SMTP id h14mr2414140oib.105.1576771943213; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:12:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157245784988.32527.18104008395862936142.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <157245784988.32527.18104008395862936142.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Mahend Negi <mahend.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 21:42:11 +0530
Message-ID: <CAM5Nu_wkN5D17dF=NPj_KeTDQ75t+tXFryqWgcU3ONJ35BQvYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity@ietf.org, Julien Meuric <julien.meuric@orange.com>, pce-chairs <pce-chairs@ietf.org>, pce@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009130e9059a10d36e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pce/KvqzNvvhJLX2VfuAbqJQGxj3BxI>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: pce@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <pce.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pce/>
List-Post: <mailto:pce@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce>, <mailto:pce-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:12:26 -0000
Hi Roman, Thanks for your review, all the comments are addressed in the new version. New version: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-13 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-13 Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-13 Regards, Mahendra On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:20 PM Roman Danyliw via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-pce-association-diversity-12: 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-pce-association-diversity/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Section 6. Per “Also, as stated in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], much > of > the information carried in the Disjointness Association object, as per this > document is not extra sensitive”, I appreciate that the language of “not > extra > sensitive” comes from Section 8 of draft-ietf-pce-association-group and > this > text is merely trying to reiterate this observation. However, I would > recommend not making any assumptions about the particular environments by > stating the following: > > OLD: > Also, as stated in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], much of the > information > carried in the Disjointness Association object, as per this document is not > extra sensitive. It often reflects information that can also be derived > from > the LSP Database, but association provides a much easier grouping of > related > LSPs and messages. The disjointness association could provide an adversary > with the opportunity to eavesdrop on the relationship between the LSPs. > > NEW > Also, as stated in [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group], much of the > information > carried in the Disjointness Association object reflects information that > can > also be derived from the LSP Database, but association provides a much > easier > grouping of related LSPs and messages. The disjointness association could > provide an adversary with the opportunity to eavesdrop on the relationship > between the LSPs and understand the network topology. > > >
- [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [Pce] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-i… Mahend Negi