Subject: [ippm] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 12:43:35 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04: 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-ippm-2680-bis/

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

Same comment I had on the security considerations section in
draft-ietf-ippm-2679-bis. I don't think it's quite accurate to say "there
can be no release of existing user data."

---

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 23:08:32 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:44 PM
> To: The IESG
> Cc: Bill Cerveny; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-ippm-2680-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-2680-bis-04:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
...
> Same comment I had on the security considerations section in draft-ietf-
> ippm-2679-bis. I don't think it's quite accurate to say "there can be no
> release of existing user data."
> 

Hi Alissa,

I'll replace the sentence with the privacy paragraph from 
section 6 of RFC 7312, including the reference to the LMAP Framework.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7312#section-6

Al