Subject: [CDNi] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-logging-25: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 06:53:57 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-cdni-logging-25: 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-cdni-logging/

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

I still agree to the privacy concerns that have been raised earlier by
Richard Barnes but don't see a solution that would justify a "DISCUSS" to
hold up the document.

Further I think it's important that TLS is mandatory and it could be
useful to already state this earlier in the doc and not only Section 7.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 15:17:12 -0500

Dear Authors/Shepherd,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-logging/

For this one, it's difficult for new ADs to follow the trail of Richard's
Discuss without microscopic examination of the History tab in the
datatracker(*), but Richard's Discuss was taken over by Stephen, and
considerable discussion ensued over multiple IETF meeting cycles. If
Stephen thinks things have improved sufficiently to clear, I'm reluctant to
push for further changes in that space.

(*) It was challenging for me to follow, and I was on the e-mail threads
from earlier versions of Stephen's ballot position, which new ADs don't see
because they weren't on the IESG at the time.

> useful to already state this earlier in the doc and not only Section 7.

I don't think I've seen a response to Mirja's comment here. Could you folks
take a look at that? It seems straightforward.

Thanks,

Spencer