Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01

"Tsao, Tzeta" <> Tue, 12 March 2013 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159EB21F8706 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jYuZjiamGZWa for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:14:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37ED221F86E3 for <>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.84,830,1355115600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="91615544"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2013 10:14:04 -0400
Received: from EVS2.NAM.CI.ROOT ([]) by cipt0174.NAM.CI.ROOT with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:14:04 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CE1F2B.D93E6A25"
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:14:02 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: RE: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01
Thread-Index: Ac4fK9kkIDxeQjnIQhqK8sBWJNFcuw==
From: "Tsao, Tzeta" <>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2013 14:14:04.0056 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9ECE980:01CE1F2B]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:15:45 -0700
Cc:,,,, "Alexander, Roger" <>,,
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:14:22 -0000

Hi Stephen,


It was just brought to my attention about your email on March 10 of the
subject SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01. I wish to
point out that it had been explicitly stated in the notice to the WG of
that revision that it still did not address SECDIR's comments. At this
juncture, because of the reorientation of the focus of the draft, it
would seem better to wait out for more input from the WG before starting
to consider how to best address the questions raised in your comments.


Let me assure you that there is no intention to side step your comments
and any such impression would mostly be due to my fault of not
communicating effectively.