Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-07

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4731AE2DD; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 06:22:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 cIuDU113nUY8; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 06:22:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5104F1ADBD5; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 06:22:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1903; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386858135; x=1388067735; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bo2+bQHXJJsoypYQFYta1rlbO+ZNLzGKAtnRjFwF09I=; b=MrIGc13lwN1OT/oDcibWasshderJIY6cFL9gFpTszoRpY7yqv/rLuM61 6XKbAvzbQgdfE6+KzYPw7q41c99BUOrhI7BxKPlYL+cdZ9a4DGJHTnBVW sM/3hHoBr4IHILwVlF6E56Z/i8EMfPR0nlOeiU5qmh/hUNLg+2Q+61Udp g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMFAJXFqVKQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABZgwqEELVYgRwWdIImAQEEIxVAARALGgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGCgMBBQIBARCHcLJIkB4XgSmNaweCbIFIBJgVhkWLT4MqOw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,878,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="1488230"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2013 14:22:14 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBCEMBW0019225; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:22:11 GMT
Message-ID: <52A9C693.3040506@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:22:11 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@hyperthought.com>
References: <1386851231.882518471@apps.rackspace.com> <52A9B085.3050301@cisco.com> <1386855497.519617520@apps.rackspace.com>
In-Reply-To: <1386855497.519617520@apps.rackspace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis.all@tools.ietf.org, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:22:25 -0000

Scott,

Many thanks for your review.

Ed,
It might make sense to update the abstract to express: provides an 
updated security considerations section forIF-CAP-STACK-MIB module

Regards, Benoit
> On Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:48am, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> said:
>
>> Hi Scott,
>>
>> Please note, from section 1.
>>
>>      Please note that IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module was not transfered to IEEE
>>      and remains as defined in RFC 5066.  This memo provides an updated
>>      security considerations section for that module, since the original
>>      RFC did not list any security consideration for IF-CAP-STACK-MIB.
>>
>> Regards, Benoit
> Wow, really sorry about my error. On a train, in a hurry, and I had the same document open in 2 tabs, so I compared it with itself. No wonder the sections were identical (doh!).
>
> I read through the security considerations section, and it seems reasonable to me.
>
> --Scott
>
>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> >From the abstract:
>>>
>>>      This document updates RFC 5066.  It amends that specification by
>>>      informing the internet community about the transition of the EFM-CU-
>>>      MIB module from the concluded IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB
>>>      Working Group to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
>>>      Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 working group.
>>>
>>> The security considerations section appears to be identical to RFC5066. Given the
>>> stated purpose of the document, this seems appropriate.
>>>
>>> --Scott
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> .
>