Hi Acee, On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:51:42PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On 10/25/18, 8:22 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: 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-ospf-lls-interface-id/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sending a new type of information to the peer usually involves a privacy > considerations analysis. I don't expect there to be anything worrisome > here, but some text in the document indicating that the analysis has been > done would be reassuring. > > Can you suggest some text? I was thinking:
I'm not sure that I could -- I don't have confidence that I understand the system well enough to frame something in a complete and correct way. > Since the scope of the interface ID is limited to the advertising OSPF > router > uniquely identifying links, there are no privacy concerns associated with > its > advertisement. I wonder if there is a step missing to link these together -- that the links are generally fixed and immobile, or that the scope of distribution is limited to a set of trusted peers, perhaps? Sorry I can't be more helpful... -Benjamin _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
