Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-dm m-4283mnids-04: (with DISCUSS)

Hello Mirja and Suresh,

I am happy to make the proposed changes as agreed below.

Regards,
Charlie P.


On 2/11/2017 1:00 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) wrote:
> Hi Suresh,
>
> sounds all good! I’m happy to quickly resolve my discuss if the authors agree!
>
> Mirja
>
>
>> Am 11.02.2017 um 05:05 schrieb Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]>:
>>
>> HI Mirja,
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: Discuss
>>>
>>> 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-dmm-4283mnids/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I would realy like to see the following changes in the security
>>> considerations section:
>>> OLD
>>> "If used in the MNID extension as defined in this
>>>   document, the packet including the MNID extension should be
>>> encrypted
>>>   so that personal information or trackable identifiers would not be
>>>   inadvertently disclosed to passive observers."
>>> NEW
>>> "If used in the MNID extension as defined in this
>>>   document, the packet including the MNID extension SHOULD be
>>> encrypted
>>>   so that personal information or trackable identifiers would not be
>>>   inadvertently disclosed to passive observers.”
>> Is this just for changing the "should" to upper case? I think that makes sense.
>>
>>> Or even better make it a MUST? Is there a reason for only having a
>>> SHOULD?
>> Authors, any specific reason for this to be a SHOULD?
>>
>>> as well as the following change:
>>> OLD
>>> "Moreover, MNIDs containing sensitive identifiers might only be used
>>>   for signaling during initial network entry. "
>>> NEW
>>> "Moreover, MNIDs containing sensitive identifiers MUST only be used
>>>   for signaling during initial network entry and MUST NOT be leaked to
>>>   other networks.”
>> The statement in OLD: is just a statement of fact that in some networks use temporary identifiers for reattachment and they use long term (and hence sensitive) identifiers only at initial attach. I don’t think it makes sense to change this to 2119 language.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Suresh
>>
>

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm