Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06
Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com> Mon, 09 March 2020 12:35 UTC
Return-Path: <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E620D3A0EC5; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 05:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 L1y1-k5n8fOe; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 05:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D9033A0EC7; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 05:35:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id BD534138797460B840A9; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:35:03 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:35:03 +0000
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.33) by fraeml715-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:35:02 +0100
Received: from fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) by fraeml714-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.206.15.33]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 13:35:02 +0100
From: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
To: Steve Hanna <steve@hannas.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
CC: "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "ippm@ietf.org" <ippm@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06
Thread-Index: AQHV9OCgMT8CAHJu50iS6berULmHjKhANE7A
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:35:02 +0000
Message-ID: <ce71672aaf7f4cfcb0c8fb06eb2853dd@huawei.com>
References: <158362735547.25505.12722503226926557935@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <158362735547.25505.12722503226926557935@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.1.210]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/0Eh0bwSd5OQAZISt4EzVRbl0-ZM>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 12:35:17 -0000
Dear Steve, Thanks a lot for your review of the draft. Regards, Giuseppe -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hanna via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@ietf.org] Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2020 1:29 AM To: secdir@ietf.org Cc: last-call@ietf.org; ippm@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark.all@ietf.org Subject: Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-06 Reviewer: Steve Hanna Review result: Ready Although I am naive with respect to IP Performance Management, I agree with the statements included in the Security Considerations section of this document. The measurement techniques described in this document seem to have fairly minimal security and privacy implications. The reference to the Security Considerations section of RFC 8321 (already included in this document) is a good way to expand on this topic. Therefore, I see no security or privacy concerns with approving this document.
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ip… Steve Hanna via Datatracker
- Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-iet… Giuseppe Fioccola