Hi Ben,
On 10/30/18, 10:08 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email protected]> wrote:
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?
The point I'm making is that since the interface ID is only unique for the
network device, it doesn't provide any clue as to the identity of the device
owner or traffic transiting the device. Hence, there are no privacy
considerations associated with extension. It is also true that routing peers
are trusted but that is a moot point for this extension In the context of
privacy.
Thanks,
Acee
Sorry I can't be more helpful...
-Benjamin
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
