IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 11 October 2017 16:28 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFA8133224; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 4RbxcLOpqIsR; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A428132F7C; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3080; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1507739316; x=1508948916; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=i7Zz3iM9yFWIi2avasKQlTInbBRcWm9pv1lAdl3RxvQ=; b=mARJSLs0Yq8pnvAD9pQXXre8SEgat4Vyct4KH5aIr+pxOFdy++Gx16AH L6D2nawyO/G/XjGlsSPRaPkAS/gl83iNIAFGkrXDbEeuldRv1pfywNwnI 0tbaqOrT0OzFHDD2G2NbqVH3rZ4cOdV02MFeEfTe925P5ZlT7YPLC+f1F o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C6AABDRt5Z/5FdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1tkbicHg3OKH48tgXaIRY1qDoIECiOFGAIahEU/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohR4BBSMRRRACAQgYAgImAgICHxEVEAIEAQ0FigwDFRCpbYInh0QNg2IBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARkFgQ6CH4IHhmWCXoF0ARIBHxeCfIJhBYoTlm48AodciBKEeYIUhXODfocKjHuIOwIRGQGBOAEfOIEDC3gVSYVPgU52AYgVgSSBEQEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,362,1503360000"; d="scan'208";a="15689622"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Oct 2017 16:28:35 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (xch-rtp-010.cisco.com [64.101.220.150]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v9BGSYsr019080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:28:35 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:28:34 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:28:34 -0400
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types@ietf.org>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, Jeff Tantsura <jefftant.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHTQqf35iqC3s+z9EWQoWk4KdoIeaLfEg0AgAAAY4D//8QpgA==
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:28:34 +0000
Message-ID: <D603BD33.CE36E%acee@cisco.com>
References: <150773672779.24763.13444803098382095385.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <d894d427-2369-bb9a-739a-5266b02b67aa@cisco.com> <CAHbuEH4jXKmh3YH9-d7yMsFk09gPKu+RYJBhSeLHT_LKsNAKeg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH4jXKmh3YH9-d7yMsFk09gPKu+RYJBhSeLHT_LKsNAKeg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.195]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0D4831DEDAE5DE498FAF75AC8EEDA82C@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/lejc9HEdsgrXCGV8deZUMLPeDQw>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:28:40 -0000

Hi Kathleen, 



On 10/11/17, 12:02 PM, "Kathleen Moriarty"
<kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> 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”?

Thanks,
Acee

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email