Re: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Kathleen,
>
>> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: 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-rtgwg-routing-types/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> It would be good to call out the elements that are identifiers in the
>> security
>> considerations section as the ones that might have an impact on security
>> and
>> privacy.  The text in 7950 is good, but just adding something to list the
>> identifiers or state that identifiers may be of concern would be an
>> improvement.  Thanks.
>
> This draft only contains the typedefs and not the leave instances.
> The privacy considerations should be on the instances, so the typedef usage.
> For example, the privacy considerations would be different if the instance
> is read only or read write.

Thanks for the quick reply.  Could that be made clear instead of a
vague sentence in the Security Considerations then so the
considerations are understood (an minimal)?

Thanks,
Kathleen
>
> Regards, Benoit
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen