Re: [secdir] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT): new (temp) draft?

["Murphy, Sandra" <[e-mail]>]

Dan Frost and I brought up some of the same comments, wrt the active or passive use of the metric and the suggestion of cryptographic hashes to solve security considerations.

The latest revision satisfies me.

There's one question I'm not adequate to address, and I leave it to the authors and ADs to address:

   Although this metric MAY be applicable in
   passive measurement as well, discussion of additional considerations
   for the passive scenario are beyond the normative scope of this memo.

Does that "MAY" mean "optional" in the 2119 sense, or "might"/"could" in normal English usage sense?  

It sounds like this is saying "there are considerations if this metric is used in a passive scenario, which we aren't going to discuss, but even so you have the option to use this".

I don't know what the "additional considerations" would be.  If they are considerations that a measurement implementer should heed, that's not much of a worry.  If they are considerations that impact others, that's more of a worry.  (Section 9.2's discussion of keeping info confidential (for passive measurements) is an example of considerations that impact others.) 

So I'll leave it to those who know whether that "MAY" is OK or not.

--Sandy 

________________________________________
From: Wesley Eddy [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:11 PM
To: Benoit Claise
Cc: [e-mail]; 'Al Morton'; [e-mail]; 'Samuel Weiler'; 'The IESG'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 'Dan Frost'; Murphy, Sandra; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-ippm-rt-loss-03:     (with DISCUSS and COMMENT): new (temp) draft?

On 4/11/2012 8:28 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Al, Wes
>
> I want to review this draft before the IESG telechat tomorrow.
> However, it's getting difficult to keep track of the all the changes
> between
>     - the posted version 3
>     - the diff-03-04 you sent
>     - the extra proposal.
>
> What is the best way to proceed?
>     - Al, have you kept a temp version with all the changes?
>     - Are we shooting for "revised-ID" at the telechat? I could start my
> review from there
>     - Do we want to have a version 4 posted now?
>
> What is the best way to proceed?


I noticed Al sent a copy with updates that have been suggested
so far.

Please feel free to hit the "Defer" button if you don't feel
there's adequate time to review this one; it looks like a busy
telechat agenda this week!

--
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems