Subject: [dhcwg] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Kathleen Moriarty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:08:20 -0700

Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-10: 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-dhc-access-network-identifier/

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

Thanks for addressing the questions raised int he SecDir review:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05811.html

There was mention of IPsec use when relaying this information and then a
question from Stephen if this was actually used.  I'm guessing the answer
is no since the protection is not mentioned in the draft, but wanted to
confirm as that wasn't clear to me from the email thread.

Additionally, is there any advice given (possibly in other related specs,
but I suspect having it here for the new values could be helpful) to
assign obscure names to several of the values like the Access Point
Identity (Name, BSSID) and Operator Id/Realm?  Obscuring only helps a
little, but having names that don't necessarily advertise the usage of
the associated network might be helpful.  Thanks.