On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Kathleen, > > > > On 10/11/17, 12:02 PM, "Kathleen Moriarty" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>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)? > > Are you familiar with the YANG language? Would it make it less vague if if > “data definitions” were replaced by “type definitions (i.e., typedef > statements)” and “security considerations” were replaced by “security and > privacy consideration”?
Hi Acee, Yes, that is a nice and simple improvement. Thank you, Kathleen > > Thanks, > Acee > >> >>Thanks, >>Kathleen >>> >>> Regards, Benoit >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Best regards, >>Kathleen > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
