[secdir] re-review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-12
Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Thu, 02 November 2017 14:20 UTC
Return-Path: <watsonbladd@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 DF87F13F41B; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 07:20:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 0ZKdUX6Jfc7I; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 07:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua0-x236.google.com (mail-ua0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::236]) (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 B43E613F56A; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 07:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua0-x236.google.com with SMTP id h34so4083752uaa.6; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:20:44 -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=bDIHqvwcFsiD4p99Vqy46eRNivuNeTb0lGaNZ+CHbKY=; b=s34mWv2r00d01tJwHxnRXJNJWKrFDiU56zPWGqm2yJt4ejEjokdi9/X9EwV1ZpIt5n 5E9QY2epTlZm9m+4RiKszHke17x3f5eOwabDtBJhOSmR9XGfVcTTOiMMjjIWP+Sbo6ix QP5iosW5Ixo20EXxHFyxiHIMMJYbXLnWBfTH2N6glF+i4pn7gxM9yjHHzftsbjYXeQ/y oedGL4OrH9KaOYkwF6yYPNJxtzlz+2xRRZY3qvHB56MjcLrdjiBaUyCGJf1D4uTDhZ9l Gu6pyGp+lL/WqGW92fQFvkwxHRmxET2w/u8dAvBIF1ej8Q/MeftQ8FL1waMq5bxb8rYB IF6A==
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=bDIHqvwcFsiD4p99Vqy46eRNivuNeTb0lGaNZ+CHbKY=; b=VheXDXdblGWzWr3A0bnux6wkWjv0GRSlLLWUqpYRsEHsxWCanmWNiHt5kNkSUgqKN7 Pu+Iyv4Sb9cowwXf3HXikekyKdvvvHhCUlVOUuxeA9DKHoacoxTTH15HOa8w5MoUGXeF BrXBzsz2/cxqnc5GbkwlGLTkIULp+ipbLF80U/7WD8S98HY1Nb07/ERt+SAIMarT1ouu 5xW6zJXB7KhsfVJqHxVoWHxOPmx9c7eEp/re0FZWgXjCUmaXUe+hsW7aQ/21fAG4hqVg k0zTfkNanfDHOBg956BzlnsxYOZONhYqwT/qpmJSho5HMkDYfw0L0L7YVEqjQJPhTrUC ipXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7Y1CUlLmjUL7MR+HU8COPVArMH9aES3uzdBSI4GFqkn1Mi2XxI y8x4/oONN6m/PJCqRqYyaNfkzy2p2zNiTPakPVvnVNN4
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+R6U3S6d1EF9EmTacEjy6R0lL8LnKR/r4Jx4S80chpr1qjgmI7PQvtrvCIE8XFjZDgr82/j0iZBoLQQTw7yuE4=
X-Received: by 10.176.79.151 with SMTP id m23mr2871666uah.185.1509632443580; Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.11.132 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Nov 2017 07:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 07:20:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0cmjq+NLuk-hLi6HNk0cSj+VRk8V1682GPLdVD+T=p_zSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<iesg@ietf.org>" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno.all@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/MzPk1ySa4DMN7W82DuSfAeq-VcY>
Subject: [secdir] re-review of draft-ietf-tcpinc-tcpeno-12
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, 02 Nov 2017 14:20:46 -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. The summary of the review is Ready. I couldn't find anything wrong with it from either a stylistic or content perspective. Sincerely, Watson Ladd