Subject: [ippm] Deborah Brungard's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:28:50 -0700

Deborah Brungard has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-6man-pdm-option-09: 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-6man-pdm-option/

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

Agree with the many comments by the other ADs. Especially, Mirja's and
Ben's comments, the document reads like a white paper vs. an IETF
specification.

The "Consent to be Measured" by a user (section 4.4) seems contra to the
use case described in the document (estimate QoS as experienced by an end
user device). It should be the network provider who should be giving
"consent to be measured" and the associated risks. Warren also noted
these sentences as inappropriate. The document discusses the security
aspects relative to the user but is missing discussion with respect to
the network provider.