Subject: [DMM] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:47:27 -0800

Ben Campbell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The security considerations says some of these identifiers can carry
sensitive information, and when they do you should encrypt. This leaves
it to the reader to decide which might be sensitive. The draft should
tell the reader which ones the working group thinks are sensitive,
keeping in mind that if an identifier is sometimes sensitive, it usually
needs to be treated as if always sensitive. (It's hard for deployed code
to figure out when it is or isn't sensitive.)

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

I agree with Stephen's, Alissa's, and Mirja's discusses. I especially
agree that we should not standardize new identifiers without justifying
each one.

Section 5 says this document does not impact existing security
mechanisms. But it does add new data elements, and acknowledges some of
them may be sensitive. Thus I think the "does not impact" assertion needs
some supporting discussion. Are the existing mechanisms still adequate?
Why?

There are a bunch of acronyms that would benefit from expansion on first
mention.