[secdir] sec-dir review of draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Fri, 10 May 2013 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.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 7AF2E21F9017; Fri, 10 May 2013 11:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xcHCE57y1DoX; Fri, 10 May 2013 11:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F9621F8FFC; Fri, 10 May 2013 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2EE0260261; Fri, 10 May 2013 14:23:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20487-01; Fri, 10 May 2013 14:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mocana.ihtfp.org (unknown [IPv6:fe80::224:d7ff:fee7:8924]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cliodev.ihtfp.com", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (not verified)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5A172601D8; Fri, 10 May 2013 14:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by mocana.ihtfp.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r4AIND0G001823; Fri, 10 May 2013 14:23:13 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:23:13 -0400
Message-ID: <sjm8v3mofse.fsf@mocana.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:23:23 -0000

Hi,

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 document describes a simple process that allows authors of
   Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by
   including an Implementation Status section.  This will allow
   reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents
   that have the benefit of running code, by considering the running
   code as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has
   made the implemented protocols more mature.

I find no issues with this document.

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant