[mile] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-09
"Brian Weis (bew)" <bew@cisco.com> Fri, 17 June 2016 21:32 UTC
Return-Path: <bew@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: expand-draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@virtual.ietf.org
Delivered-To: mile@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 65534) id D433E12DBC8; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xfilter-draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98F4212DBC9 for <xfilter-draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V7_4ZmOVeTy2 for <xfilter-draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 853C112DBC8 for <draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com ([173.37.86.80]:62884) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_ARCFOUR_128_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <bew@cisco.com>) id 1bE1Nf-0004FF-2p for draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@tools.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:32:48 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1012; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1466199166; x=1467408766; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:content-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Z06EVqGO/IT1tdvMVxBJZV1NonYCf/zGlfhLix+MglM=; b=RLiwL4w8ZO6S6iNxJ+SHd1esdAaPgxXZBJBfSqP5557UjowR6lE493mu A1D5DpOoDfb1UVLuj4KMsNlZKK7p0WgfLtg/ptuVAjDUDcLgLFgqdWynf 4JMkHgKZZ3UKZP9z0vs1P17Kw5whpMTL7kTv/MFHz978PfjOUSWFfK1dn 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0COBQAlbGRX/4UNJK1dgz6BWbsZgXqGF4EnOhIBAQEBAQEBZSeEUjo/EgE+QicEAQ2INcB5AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR6IHopCgi8FmHUBgTCMeY8ij3YBJQEug3CKN38BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,485,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="114169947"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Jun 2016 21:32:39 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5HLWdI4011985 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:32:39 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.220.141) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:32:38 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) by XCH-RTP-001.cisco.com ([64.101.220.141]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:32:38 -0400
From: "Brian Weis (bew)" <bew@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir review of draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-09
Thread-Index: AQHRyN/FSjlY5rBOrki9mgn+ezADWw==
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:32:38 +0000
Message-ID: <060C987D-B171-479E-9A60-A37E2DF63759@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.154.210.8]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1FA7DDFFCA79A745821134DBC9FC0F19@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 173.37.86.80
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: bew@cisco.com
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org)
Resent-From: alias-bounces@ietf.org
Resent-To: inacio@andrew.cmu.edu, daisu-mi@nc.u-tokyo.ac.jp, ncamwing@cisco.com, takeshi_takahashi@nict.go.jp, david.waltermire@nist.gov, Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie, mile-chairs@tools.ietf.org, mile@ietf.org
Resent-To: draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@ietf.org
Resent-Message-Id: <20160617213248.853C112DBC8@ietfa.amsl.com>
Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:32:48 -0700
Resent-From: bew@cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@tools/41ZxzGlfvA7UfKmwBpxURfvZi_w>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mile/msoTxOfpYw_dGCMlVuT3D9NTwTo>
Cc: "draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mile-implementreport.all@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: [mile] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mile-implementreport-09
X-BeenThere: mile@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Managed Incident Lightweight Exchange, IODEF extensions and RID exchanges" <mile.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mile/>
List-Post: <mailto:mile@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mile>, <mailto:mile-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:32:50 -0000
I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. This draft is a collection of implementation reports of several RFCs in the IETF INCident Handling (INCH) and Management Incident Lightweight Exchange (MILE) working groups. The reports include implementation of tools to create and consume security incident reports and security incident objects. It includes a summary of each implementation, and an Implementation Guide. The document does not define any new protocols, or make any new requirements on the incident report and incident objects. The Security Considerations section states that there are no security considerations, and I concur. I consider the document Ready to publish. Brian
- [mile] Secdir review of draft-ietf-mile-implement… Brian Weis (bew)