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

"Tsao, Tzeta" <Tzeta.Tsao@cooperindustries.com> Tue, 12 March 2013 14:14 UTC

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: <85A23E0910B2FB4B8EF60D0888CB083602658653@EVS2.nam.ci.root>
Thread-Topic: RE: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01
Thread-Index: Ac4fK9kkIDxeQjnIQhqK8sBWJNFcuw==
From: "Tsao, Tzeta" <Tzeta.Tsao@cooperindustries.com>
To: kent@bbn.com, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
Cc: angel.lozano@upf.edu, vanesa.daza@upf.edu, secdir@ietf.org, jpv@cisco.com, "Alexander, Roger" <Roger.Alexander@cooperindustries.com>, mischa.dohler@cttc.es, adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01
Precedence: list

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.

 

Regards,

Tzeta

[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-securit… Stephen Kent
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-sec… Tsao, Tzeta
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-sec… Stephen Kent
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-sec… Adrian Farrel
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-sec… Michael Richardson
Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-sec… Tsao, Tzeta