Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-bess-mvpn-mib-11: 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-bess-mvpn-mib/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A general comment that we've been making on lots of documents in this space is that it would be nice to be in a place where the acronym "VPN" implies transport encryption. It's unclear that it's appropriate to request changes to this specific document toward that end, though. Perhaps I'm confused, but "mvpnAdvtPeerAddr" appears in the security considerations in the list of address-related objects that may have privacy/security impact. That list is predicated on being "objects with a MAX-ACCESS other than not-accessible", but all the instances of mvpnAdvtPeerAddr I found in the body text were marked as not-accessible. Similarly for mvpnMrouteCmcastGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs, mvpnMrouteNextHopGroupAddr, mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs, and mvpnMrouteNextHopAddr. (Incidentally, why ar mvpnMrouteCmcastSourceAddrs and mvpnMrouteNextHopSourceAddrs plural with the final 's'?) Perhaps using subsections to separate the various tables' descriptions would aid readability. _______________________________________________ BESS mailing list BESS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
