Subject: [netmod] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 06:49:48 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-07: 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-netmod-module-tags/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this document does introduce new security considerations,
specifically the ability for one user to remove ("mask") tags from being
visible to other users.  A malicious user could interfere with the
operations of other users/entities, especially in the case mentioned in
an example where multiple semi-independent clients use tags to indicate
modules to avoid that may be broken.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 2

Similarly to Alissa's DISCUSS, perhaps "registered prefix" is better
than "standard prefix".

Section 2.4

Similarly, "future registration" or "future use" seem to be better fits
for the intended sentiment.

Section 3.2

I may be misreading, but this seems to be encouraging implementations to
add new ietf:-prefixed tags that are not necessarily registered or
specified in IETF-consensus documents.

Section 7.2

   This registry allocates prefixes that have the standard prefix
   "ietf:".  [...]

The registry name just talks about "tags"; are we really allocating
*prefix*es?