Re: [secdir] secdir Review of draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-04

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Sat, 01 February 2014 18:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 BD6C11A03EC; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:22:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 kvyF7J3tN82e; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:22:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DECF1A045F; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:22:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUu07elODlQmgf/ugMDtWzUYeXKC/3Un8@postini.com; Sat, 01 Feb 2014 10:22:50 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 742FD1B82F8; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DBB9190052; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:22:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Sat, 1 Feb 2014 10:22:50 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F4736056F@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 13:22:45 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2B98A618-A1A3-40E2-8C0B-31F677ACE327@nominum.com>
References: <1f794d77ca95458d9d7cf06e20950090@BLUPR05MB737.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F4736024C@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <638ccecdeecb4b458718b1c33821c092@BLUPR05MB737.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F473603EB@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <9e76a90f04f24e3aa156abcc1cca7f5e@BLUPR05MB737.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F4736056F@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Boucadair" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: "draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64.all@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir Review of draft-ietf-pcp-nat64-prefix64-04
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: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 18:22:56 -0000

On Jan 24, 2014, at 7:51 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:
> For issue#9, I didn't added any change for the moment but will reconsider it if we received a similar comment during the WGLC. 
> 
> The next revision of the draft will include what we have agreed so far.

Thanks for getting this update done, Med, and for the review and feedback, Stephen.   I've looked at Med's response on point 9, and it makes sense to me, so I'm going to assume that no further action on that is needed unless I hear otherwise.