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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Sandy,

I've cleared.

S

On 04/12/2012 05:19 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
> 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
>