Dear Roman, Thanks a lot for your review and comment. I merged them into the -11 version.
There is also an htmlized version available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-11 A diff from the previous version is available at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-11 Best wishes Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 6:28 PM To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-...@ietf.org; opsawg-cha...@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com; mohamed.boucad...@orange.com Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10: (with COMMENT) Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh-10: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-ipfix-srv6-srh/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Tero Kivinen for the SECDIR review. ** Section 9 There exists no significant extra security considerations regarding allocation of these new IPFIX IEs compared to [RFC7012] What are the “non-significant extra security considerations” not mentioned in RFC7012? The text implies there is something more to say. ** Section 9. Privacy considerations described in Section 11.8 of [RFC7012] SHOULD be considered for all described IEs. They export provider data plane metrics which describe how packets are being forwarded within the SRv6 network. -- Typo. This text should reference Section 11.8 of RFC7011. RFC7012 has no privacy consideration and no Section 11. -- Even though this is a data model, the clarity of “SHOULD ... consider” language (here) to text which has non-normative “mays” and “musts” (of RFC7011) is murky. Consider if it is more appropriate to say “must”. For example: NEW The IEs described in this document export provider plane data metrics on how packets are being forwarded within an SRv6 network. Applications and operators using the IEs described in this document must evaluate the sensitivity of this information in their implementation context, and apply the data-at-rest storage guidance in Section 11.8 of RFC7011 as appropriate.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
