On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kathleen, > >> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-16: 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-rtgwg-routing-types/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> It would be good to call out the elements that are identifiers in the >> security >> considerations section as the ones that might have an impact on security >> and >> privacy. The text in 7950 is good, but just adding something to list the >> identifiers or state that identifiers may be of concern would be an >> improvement. Thanks. > > This draft only contains the typedefs and not the leave instances. > The privacy considerations should be on the instances, so the typedef usage. > For example, the privacy considerations would be different if the instance > is read only or read write.
Thanks for the quick reply. Could that be made clear instead of a vague sentence in the Security Considerations then so the considerations are understood (an minimal)? Thanks, Kathleen > > Regards, Benoit >> >> >> >> . >> > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
