Re: [Unwanted-trackers] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-dult-00-05: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi John!

Thanks for the review.  I published a -06 in response.  A bit more below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Unwanted-trackers <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of
> John Scudder via Datatracker
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2024 9:56 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [Unwanted-trackers] John Scudder's No Objection on charter-ietf-dult-
> 00-05: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you
> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> 
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-dult-00-05: 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.)
> 
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dult/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - In "The full system consists of three major subsystems" it's not obvious what
> "full system" is being talked about -- the pre-existing tracker system, or the TBD
> DULT system. The subsequent sentence, "These three subsystems have
> interfaces that are relevant to unwanted tracking", implies it's the pre-existing
> system, but I'm dubious that those three points define the major subsystems of
> those networks as currently built. For one thing, the list completely omits the
> intended use case of letting the owner find their keys.
> 
> - "To address this threat" in the third paragraph -- presumably "this threat"
> refers back to paragraph 1's "These accessories can be misused to track another
> person’s location without their knowledge", but the interpolation of paragraph
> 2 makes that unclear. I suggest spelling out what threat you're talking about or
> otherwise disambiguating.

New language added.

> - I agree that the reference to "gender-based violence experts" should be
> retained but worded in a way that doesn't seem to exclude the possibility of
> consulting other experts as well.

If you have a suggestion, we'll take it.  Coordinating with the named experts was an explicit output from the BOF/mailing list discussion.  I don’t see the text precluding other experts.  I just don't see an invitation naming other experts.

..
> NITS:
> 
> - “unwanted tracked detection” should presumably be "unwanted tracker
> detection” although better still "detection of unwanted trackers" since then
> there's no ambiguity about what "unwanted" is modifying.
> 
> - "tag" is maybe a little too much in-crowd jargon. Define or better still,
> reword.
> 
> - “create new vector” should be "create a new vector" or "create new vectors"
> 
> - The wording "IETF 6lo WG and Bluetooth SIG" can make it sound as though
> the Bluetooth SIG is an IETF group. Easy fix: "Bluetooth SIG and IETF 6lo WG".

All proposals above merged into -06.

Thanks,
Roman