On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:21:14AM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On 10/30/18, 9:09 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 02:28:12PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > 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. > > Ah, I see; thanks. How does "The interface ID is locally assigned by the > advertising OSPF router as a uniquifier and need not be unique in any > broader context; it is not expected to contain any information about the > device owner or traffic transiting the device, so there are no privacy > concerns associated with its advertisement." sound? > > Sure - that is clearer. In fact, I realized that it wasn't obvious after > explaining it in my last Email. I'd avoid "uniquifier" since it isn't in the > dictionary yielding: > > The interface ID is assigned by the advertising OSPF router as a locally > unique identifier and need not be unique in any broader context; it is > not expected to contain any information about the device owner or > traffic transiting the device, so there are no privacy concerns > associated with its advertisement.
Ship it! :) Thanks, Benjamin _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
