Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: Discuss
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-dmm-4283mnids/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The security considerations says some of these identifiers can carry sensitive information, and when they do you should encrypt. This leaves it to the reader to decide which might be sensitive. The draft should tell the reader which ones the working group thinks are sensitive, keeping in mind that if an identifier is sometimes sensitive, it usually needs to be treated as if always sensitive. (It's hard for deployed code to figure out when it is or isn't sensitive.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Stephen's, Alissa's, and Mirja's discusses. I especially agree that we should not standardize new identifiers without justifying each one. Section 5 says this document does not impact existing security mechanisms. But it does add new data elements, and acknowledges some of them may be sensitive. Thus I think the "does not impact" assertion needs some supporting discussion. Are the existing mechanisms still adequate? Why? There are a bunch of acronyms that would benefit from expansion on first mention. _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
