Subject: [i2rs] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 06:39:25 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-i2rs-traceability-10: 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-i2rs-traceability/

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

Thanks for handling my discuss point. The comments below
are old and I didn't check if you'd done anything about them
in -10 but that's fine either way unless you want to chat more
about 'em.

--------- OLD COMMENTS

- 5.2: Requested/Applied Operation Data - I would guess
this can include sensitive values, e.g. keys/passwords.
Shouldn’t you say to at least be careful of those, or
perhaps to not log them, or to zero out known sensitive
values before logging?

- 7.2: how is privacy an implementation detail?

- 7.4: What does "being preferred" mean in 2119 terms? Why
is one of the three options not mandatory-to-implement?

---

From: Joe Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 10:13:34 -0400

All of these should now be addressed in -10.  Thanks again for the review.

Joe