Information Model for Large-Scale Measurement Platforms (LMAPs)
RFC 8193

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 17 and is now closed.

Alissa Cooper Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15 for -17)
No email
send info
Russ's comment/question about the credentials is a good one. It is fine to have different arrangements for different situations, but Russ’s question was really not about that but whether the CA information mentioned earlier is a part of a specific part of the information model (ma-credentials). I think that deserves clarification.

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-14 for -17)
No email
send info
I concur with Russ's comment in his GenArt review that the credentials/certificates described in section 3.1 warrant discussion in the security considerations section.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-16 for -17)
No email
send info
I suspect Leif and Russ are right that credential handling
needs a bit more work. (IOW, I agree with Jari's comment.)

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-10 for -17)
No email
send info
Why is this document Standards Track? I think it should be informational!

Minor comments/questions:
- It's not really explained what tags are (see ma-report-result-tags) ? And what's the differents to options (ma-report-result-options)?
- Is it correct that an ma-report-table-obj can cover multiple ma-report-table-functions? Examples would be good here!
- Sec 3.7.: "There is no mechanism to prioritise one schedule over another or to mutex scheduled tasks."
  Why is that? Was this discussed? I would guess that would be important to have!
- Wouldn't it makes sense to discuss the common objects first?
- The regristry concept is rather unclear to me as it suddently shows up in section 3.10. Especially what's a role in this context (ma-registry-role)? Example?

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-16 for -17)
No email
send info
I only skimmed the document.

ma-log-description:       A human readable description of the event.

As per Section 4 of BCP 18 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp18>, human readable text should be associated with language tags. You should consider adding this functionality to the information model.

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-14 for -17)
No email
send info
In the security considerations section, I see the following text:

   These mechanisms are important to ensure that the MA
   cannot be hijacked, for example to participate in a distributed
   denial of service attack.

Wouldn't using the systems or the collected data for network recon (or other attacks) be a more important consideration to be listed than DDoS?

Alvaro Retana No Objection