[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-05

Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com> Mon, 12 June 2017 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <magnusn@gmail.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 6DC86129BA5; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ym7_5yncwqvo; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x233.google.com (mail-qt0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233]) (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 0C669126CD6; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x233.google.com with SMTP id c10so113377653qtd.1; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=eTn4qLcmnrwe5+OV1XgBHJ2w6tZxLkzGQ1hjGOs3sH4=; b=gJ67h/Dk1uSs1FtnytORtl8EpehmGs5f1FDhM9VK14BR4CZVg44I1ncteiRDAVafI2 oiNRfLzNICA9i0cfhjyy638QpoX/UYtcD5cx0ndJvkEj6PyVa+/AlIRSG5UUJFKWiZul bK5hFgh0ugjAPBW7f95KpRvAeAEeS1FjjkJBY3Y1RvoFU3fi2ni/TjlDRc4VJjB3f61S jnxWUNK9WkRk3HOPLVCP6PIChm7P2zBvkhl2rcvLbubHfabAPrwtfRijqCJVqpDTss+c D5f1bAPVgWxXKmZYplENNNoI9IXRi7rqs8bcrHezU/DMolWcBtAMxFxjmuOVwf2NhSwW XFmg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=eTn4qLcmnrwe5+OV1XgBHJ2w6tZxLkzGQ1hjGOs3sH4=; b=r/sL9Ir8NdRW9eIqjDU4jHk9UxjYcD6jly+Q7QI87yarPIm+gaMOlBAniV8I4QnxDW Q3J3R8+JwclWkn8ULA4GgjP4/KxQfIQr7q6Sy1if+E2+rVHdcnDnoz1SeiNHLweSj0/R SuadOST/XL7mzmIcluIKg3dqFsS+KUUO3bMjkKKG69LwUbJRzXt03+EMAxBjXIHfAEbV eaC8IgM7xds/UhbxJnQgz2VsPQRfOmyHjH2K4NTyvOoqXqEVdPn0IVO0CMcS25Ucu6wW 0ZfhMHCYhNo+eil8e2GcRRVdfdDtd+PiCVupmUp5IVe2N6XrN9TSHiZfw6mrhxCloeFw r1uQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDUoS+L1AG0MeoVRAIBTfwJe9ekrvcH5J7G3PKKqiZizod4dBnU 42Q0vtij8qIteYi3FaztfFLcnRI8zg==
X-Received: by 10.200.46.50 with SMTP id r47mr48524463qta.209.1497241356154; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.41.230 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:22:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CADajj4aN9uq0xidW5w_hWiZ9=NKP2Zr_mg-_kn=wchX3Cnd6=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1137b0f62d3d0f0551bbabe3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/AJnBnZuvoNjLK4BWon-8tfYc2aY>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps-05
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 12 Jun 2017 04:22:38 -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 document describes experiences from allocations of special-use
top-level domain names.
As such, it does not contain any new security considerations beyond what's
already discussed in underlying RFCs. The security considerations section
also reflects this. I have no concerns with this document.

Thanks,
-- Magnus