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.
>
>
>