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 12:28 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Kathleen,
>
>
>
> On 10/11/17, 12:02 PM, "Kathleen Moriarty"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>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)?
>
> Are you familiar with the YANG language? Would it make it less vague if if
> “data definitions” were replaced by “type definitions (i.e., typedef
> statements)” and “security considerations” were replaced by “security and
> privacy consideration”?

Hi Acee,

Yes, that is a nice and simple improvement.

Thank you,
Kathleen

>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Kathleen
>>>
>>> Regards, Benoit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Kathleen
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen