Hi Ben, Acee,
On 31/10/18 02:26 , Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 01:21:14AM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
Hi Ben,
On 10/30/18, 9:09 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <ka...@mit.edu> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 02:28:12PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On 10/30/18, 10:08 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <ka...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Acee,
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 01:51:42PM +0000, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > On 10/25/18, 8:22 AM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <ka...@mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-ospf-lls-interface-id-08: 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-ospf-lls-interface-id/
> >
> >
> >
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Sending a new type of information to the peer usually involves
a privacy
> > considerations analysis. I don't expect there to be anything
worrisome
> > here, but some text in the document indicating that the
analysis has been
> > done would be reassuring.
> >
> > Can you suggest some text? I was thinking:
>
> I'm not sure that I could -- I don't have confidence that I
understand the
> system well enough to frame something in a complete and correct way.
>
> > Since the scope of the interface ID is limited to the
advertising OSPF router
> > uniquely identifying links, there are no privacy concerns
associated with its
> > advertisement.
>
> I wonder if there is a step missing to link these together -- that
the
> links are generally fixed and immobile, or that the scope of
distribution
> is limited to a set of trusted peers, perhaps?
>
> The point I'm making is that since the interface ID is only unique for
the network device, it doesn't provide any clue as to the identity of the device
owner or traffic transiting the device. Hence, there are no privacy considerations
associated with extension. It is also true that routing peers are trusted but that
is a moot point for this extension In the context of privacy.
Ah, I see; thanks. How does "The interface ID is locally assigned by the
advertising OSPF router as a uniquifier and need not be unique in any
broader context; it is not expected to contain any information about the
device owner or traffic transiting the device, so there are no privacy
concerns associated with its advertisement." sound?
Sure - that is clearer. In fact, I realized that it wasn't obvious after explaining it in
my last Email. I'd avoid "uniquifier" since it isn't in the dictionary yielding:
The interface ID is assigned by the advertising OSPF router as a locally
unique identifier and need not be unique in any broader context; it is
not expected to contain any information about the device owner or
traffic transiting the device, so there are no privacy concerns
associated with its advertisement.
Ship it! :)
updated the draft, will submit as soon as the submission reopens.
thanks,
Peter
Thanks,
Benjamin
.
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
