Hi Kathleen, On 10/11/17, 1:23 PM, "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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. Great - I will provide in the next update. Thanks, Acee > >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
