[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20

Liang Xia via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 04 November 2019 12:17 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33E461200FE; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 04:17:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Liang Xia via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, ippm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.108.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Liang Xia <frank.xialiang@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <157286982914.16495.10027301533569708716@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 04:17:09 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/6WXEKcZqlRy01m1ScpNRYafAK5c>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ippm-metric-registry-20
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 04 Nov 2019 12:17:09 -0000

Reviewer: Liang Xia
Review result: Ready

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 defines the format for the IANA Performance Metrics Registry.
This document also gives a set of guidelines for Registered Performance Metric
requesters and reviewers.

I agree with the statement in Security Considerations that "This draft defines
a registry structure, and does not itself introduce any new security
considerations for the Internet." So, the specific security consideration for
the defined new Performance Metrics Registry should be described in the
mandatory references and evaluated and passed by the appointed Performance
Metrics Experts.

In summary, there is no more security issues left for this document.