Re: [secdir] SecDir Review of draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-04

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Mon, 30 April 2012 13:05 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@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 9E92E21F8637; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.964
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.964 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 FEP0xqcaFbsi; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188C421F861F; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbeh20 with SMTP id eh20so967673obb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=I+PtQ+pHrvh4QRHhyt+sk8f/tpdIkD85nTcinP7vjO0=; b=fRwFL+dXOn44jF53YysrAcM+agAuMZl+K5nsH+EbXZ79KxWUSNX5BD6QfIhoRTPapU QdqayiR2UpigssvwCJ2C6zCkgmz2w/iX2yzqdPAcqZgVe4ZE1GY4mnWG813QCz0W2rre mqilAa4Kh3kJtz2ef4sKluYpanrDT9/6tAtOjO0wtiD1OgcEUI7KIq8zo8s6UZhXEiE2 s5KxzBWT63cd4SgLL2IbHjh3OvNpkyVoBBIBq8DtRv9rJ4pVMwq4RWgOSR09FFBBRSHg 6OOVXW/BE+iQH7cf1R8pCSLDG+47YPwLJJ4IOmF9wUL2cpXJU5NFiQQwSnhcACTO6RKg Vofw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.11.40 with SMTP id n8mr27456231obb.32.1335791110746; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.60.10.68 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4F9E6FDF.3080209@isode.com>
References: <4F9E6FDF.3080209@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:05:10 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: siJtvRZVbSQkR40SGVNnv_yvTOk
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+AP_N18Yh1LaKD6JK=_QmEUb157BB5Mk2mcvdR-HwpMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios.all@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir Review of draft-ietf-avtext-rams-scenarios-04
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: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:05:11 -0000

> The document says that it has no security considerations. While I would
> agree that it doesn't add new security considerations to the one defined in
> RFC 6285, I am a bit puzzled why it doesn't say exactly that. RFC 6285 has
> very extensive Security Considerations.

The author has already agreed to incorporate my IESG Evaluation comment, thus:

> Security Considerations:
> Might it not be better to say something like this?:
> "Because this document describes deployment scenarios for RAMS, all security
> considerations are specified in the RAMS specifiction [RFC6285]."

Barry