[secdir] SecDir review of draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 13:00 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 22A181294CA; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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_LOW=-0.7, 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 6g5hobu0-b-E; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::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 63C3E126C83; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id z204so39347338vkd.1; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:00:52 -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=b2TN++1rZKMfUA46X6nEc3Me7qY5uKPQYwoFXnU28ug=; b=VOAiuUfKvat+9hfQj+nmmKZ4j0n/qWSpwTA2TE5Hi/LE7hrjGKSJj1zkgzjdwVCSBW Jhdev9k9d8SiuKKG1C+sQ2hgdp5ww3AOVi1N95v9Foe30iqFpY3+ks/QtcIZp9Wgw1TL QhslX+QNRR4nQMts7izlWDWl2XzAVu2JXFWCUnW67hRu4bmKJV+QS72/LRcYukCcqwMZ QkaM9E1+Yj/T+ODAY418c1hv91400uAX9fMZhAE/EzCn/eOKCMdVmR+IwAUz4eR5CbGd 6vwWcplrqjFQfLlPHiR7vGQrMuP15Xq4foDCEp75zFPjdrVKlDeJhLY+T6iUxvxn4EeX fePA==
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=b2TN++1rZKMfUA46X6nEc3Me7qY5uKPQYwoFXnU28ug=; b=HGm50qnI2QqH7upkJAppa4XRQAAeMPSHsS3MacGvP8hfnxInsDtaIT/xzzq0sfr8w2 7FTz4M4WrGSLJBoZpSMMLx/h74x7DH7So+p58DlQLVe+1ovmn8OM2j8bp2ml0n122jmY JQsfZ8d82Lk4tUW6Uk/Nng1z5BhraSUPYhck9I9uGM9eX/dhsD4u1F0ib6TWVmi0HJXn xYSrg1SZ1h1MJbMQRS3Qo4NcsIWpzhlk5jGd6L93XjrNnKNiNtg0SH0P4/YpqguXImCR x7XeEmp+hyt9gxxKFwIh5PYG4YU/9iNqVpuxGqw/xgR4Y/36qpvB/Rzu6d1P8jIcSubI pnVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1yda1vJijC6aMkscusd9b9Xv8/rpk18Sho90O767t2IMev/h8kMHP9+/tHFuVY1C+Fj3UEF4cLCHNT4g==
X-Received: by 10.31.210.132 with SMTP id j126mr14661890vkg.95.1491483651227; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 06:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.85.82 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 06:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:00:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGL6epLwPY=B0q2t+Qin8DHRy8oVh4hFofD1QeYvb3vAM7PTQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114e552438456e054c7f1985"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/EqZWmMvK3taDhr571SZYwSJ9O5o>
Subject: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09
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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:00:54 -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 with nits*

The document describes security and management functions that might be
impacted by the increased use of encryption.
The goal of the document is to only list the potential problems, not to
propose
solutions to these problems.


*nits:*

1. The document refers to an Appendix in multiples places, which is now
section 7.
2. Page 18, second line: the word 'trusted' has quotes around it; is there
a reason for that?

Regards,
 Rifaat