Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-07

Edward Beili <EdwardB@actelis.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 20:43 UTC

From: Edward Beili <EdwardB@actelis.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:42:51 +0200
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-07
Thread-Index: Ac73errN+uqSUHm0QnKlrZe1Eb8Lcw==
Message-ID: <DE6DE0CE-0FFB-4D9C-86B3-6C71DB961CBB@actelis.com>
References: <1386851231.882518471@apps.rackspace.com> <52A9B085.3050301@cisco.com> <1386855497.519617520@apps.rackspace.com> <52A9C693.3040506@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <52A9C693.3040506@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis.all@tools.ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-07
Precedence: list

Benoit,
Ok, will do that tomorrow, if I ever get home - I'm stuck in the snow on my way to Jerusalem - crazy weather here...

Regards,
-E.


On Dec 12, 2013, at 16:22, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

Scott,

Many thanks for your review.

Ed,
It might make sense to update the abstract to express: provides an 
updated security considerations section forIF-CAP-STACK-MIB module

Regards, Benoit
> On Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:48am, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> said:
> 
>> Hi Scott,
>> 
>> Please note, from section 1.
>> 
>>     Please note that IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module was not transfered to IEEE
>>     and remains as defined in RFC 5066.  This memo provides an updated
>>     security considerations section for that module, since the original
>>     RFC did not list any security consideration for IF-CAP-STACK-MIB.
>> 
>> Regards, Benoit
> Wow, really sorry about my error. On a train, in a hurry, and I had the same document open in 2 tabs, so I compared it with itself. No wonder the sections were identical (doh!).
> 
> I read through the security considerations section, and it seems reasonable to me.
> 
> --Scott
> 
> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> From the abstract:
>>> 
>>>     This document updates RFC 5066.  It amends that specification by
>>>     informing the internet community about the transition of the EFM-CU-
>>>     MIB module from the concluded IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB
>>>     Working Group to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
>>>     Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 working group.
>>> 
>>> The security considerations section appears to be identical to RFC5066. Given the
>>> stated purpose of the document, this seems appropriate.
>>> 
>>> --Scott
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> .
>

[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc50… Scott G. Kelly
Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-r… Benoit Claise
Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-r… Scott G. Kelly
Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-r… Benoit Claise
Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-r… Edward Beili