Subject: [sfc] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 08:21:15 -0800

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv-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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-nsh-tlv/

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

I strongly support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position.  To repeat (Ben’s first
point), the privacy and security implications of each of these new meta-data
items defined in Section 4 needs to be evaluated and documented.

Thanks to Charlie Kaufman for the SECDIR review.

** Section 1.  Typo. s/serveral/several/

** Section 4.1  References needed for certain the CT values.
-- 0x0, Shouldn’t this also reference [IEEE.802.1Q_2018] (just like with 0x1)?
-- 0x2 and 0x3 is there a reference for MPLS VPN and VNI?

** Section 4.5.  Editorial. Multiple Instances of s/Dest Group/Destination
Group/