Re: [bmwg] Secdir early review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-00

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Let me add my thanks for your review Kathleen!

@Brian and team, there is a "standard" security section
in wg chair's slides and other drafts. Please feel 
free to improve and customize the text for this 
case of next-gen firewall benchmarking 
(in isolated test environments, consistent with our charter).

regards,
Al
bmwg co-chair

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Monkman [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 4:40 PM
> To: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Secdir early review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-00
> 
> Thanks for your feedback Kathleen. I will review it with the team and may
> get back to you with questions.
> 
> Brian Monkman
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathleen Moriarty via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: July 8, 2019 4:38 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Secdir early review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-00
> 
> Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> Thank you for your work on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance.  This is a
> straightforward review establishing metrics for comparison of SUT/DUT for
> firewalls establishing measurement requirements as well as acceptance
> criteria.
>  When crypto is recommended for use in testing, it's current, although it
> should be noted that this is just for test environments.  In terms of
> security, I think this document is ready with nits.
> 
> Please add a security considerations section.  Feel free to include
> something like what's above.
> 
> Section 4.1: Nit
> 
> Spell out Device under test/system under test on first use.  I don't think
> it comes up that often in the IESG review cycle.  I had to look it up and
> my memory was jogged.
> 
> Sorry for my late 'early' review!
> 
>