[secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 03 February 2017 14:29 UTC
Return-Path: <rifaat.ietf@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 E64AD129648; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 06:29:14 -0800 (PST)
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 R02VDXaWeDOD; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 06:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x235.google.com (mail-ua0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::235]) (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 B586B129417; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 06:29:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x235.google.com with SMTP id 35so14781015uak.1; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 06:29:13 -0800 (PST)
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=lHFc+fedJj2iZoyORcL6OQUnFj1K0ifYeVPOhDwgdE4=; b=W51bYnVbaLUUtzzkbAnNXLGKyvBw5Wn3aQyP89C8L7vipMnmFQYZo0vw35ECeFfaZn hXTRzoH6eKxrqdS+vhbKliUGU8ZCuDv4OpEpwwLL35GX4C6rFD/EUmR0kmX+w3Dsvusd W75ebRQTFnjz6GvO2d2wunZdSf25etv4o61h/g1LsTTFba50BwFMmi6lPaEYEVj7HfhD iUbMrvRFhLmqw/6ABj/r60sIbSrlLKi2CO4UOKdNX4Kf5XJ1OXzW287tGOI3RoQFesoO +jazr6f9l0ErcoYYVunadtRkWfJA2F7BkHuILKxTRrscnJNzHOwncV+uw8NUR7Er0/CT AAnw==
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=lHFc+fedJj2iZoyORcL6OQUnFj1K0ifYeVPOhDwgdE4=; b=IFX8JU/y/ir8rio9CqRtkw7T04PHTNzOirEmmCp8QUFBGXk2Jjen/GC/LY+uBB5aO+ Oif8HqVTkk+Uqfrhzo0csADwObu6D1TSbc3J2ZZp3fr6zq6Ts/2KDrw80HN57Fa549zc +4q7W/euk58YoT8vltJQPnE8aNSnfx23odrwcYYkETr1soiMyBKipZIH+O6V+VJF5ma8 5EPvKCIoy9VNCJ4S30eoXIe6x10GKqFhO5v62zPJd4hnjgZdCaMWgspPnOs7FErzg2yM tCDAOBHdLjJZ576hpqNmfRZkOov45pDugFPhp8If6QyakaCwtqZAFKVL6bHmU3xn1ky3 +g9w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLIRi88gsERhCiNM9b4XvU0h08BeyWvIWTTGKeudVU4kj+wVthJmLfNGtzHd1BfwvR/lIsVprDTf6Sy8Q==
X-Received: by 10.159.36.39 with SMTP id 36mr7009885uaq.146.1486132152631; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 06:29:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.52.146 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 06:29:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 09:29:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGL6epLOm6x4ydJ0gmMtkXF8fPwScXKJBzTZPUyDFJ=rgde4rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113527680c25380547a11b4e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/EYnGFFLfZibTWMQhbsJdiFyM3iY>
Subject: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981bis-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 14:29:15 -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. Summary: *Ready*. The Security Considerations section describes the possible attacks and their implications, and reasonable ways to mitigate their impact. Regards, Rifaat
- [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc1981… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef