Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements

"Susan Hares" <> Tue, 04 October 2016 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267C7129872; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 06:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.946
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OBDwem-BdLl9; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 300C2129855; Tue, 4 Oct 2016 06:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Radia Perlman' <>,, 'The IESG' <>,
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 09:50:46 -0400
Message-ID: <0dbe01d21e46$4f1054a0$ed30fde0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0DBF_01D21E24.C800FE90"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQHwTaRIVxyKa536AFjBbYHNIg5Xy6Bb8Rmw
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2016 13:52:23 -0000



Thank you for the additional review.  I will update this in the next version of the draft (which is in the RFC editor’s queue).




From: Radia Perlman [] 
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:12 AM
To:; The IESG;
Subject: Secdir review of draft-ietf-i2rs-protocol-security-requirements




On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Radia Perlman <> wrote:
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.

I previously reviewed version 6 and 10, and all my comments are addressed in this version (17). The secdir assignment was for version 14, but the latest version seems to be 17, so that is the one that I reviewed.


Nothing substantive, certainly no security issues, and it's ready for publication.


I do have a few super-minor typos in this version (17)  Apologies for the weird formatting of my comments below. Perhaps it's gmail, that when I cut-and-paste from the document, makes weird boxes, so please ignore the boxes.  If gmail is just putting boxes in while I type in my comments, just to annoy me, and they don't appear in the sent email, then ignore the non-boxes I'm complaining about.  Anyway, here are my comments:


There seems to be a cut-and-paste error here:


"The optional insecure transport can only be used restricted set of publically data available (events or information)"


Perhaps it should be "The optional insecure transport can only be used when accessing publically available data (events or information)".  


Not exactly sure what you'd like it to be...but there does seem to be at least a missing word in the text from the document.



And as long as I'm noticing extremely minor editorial things during reread:


"The first application is a weekly configuration application
   that uses the I2RS protocol to change configurations.  The second
   application is an application that allows operators to makes
   emergency changes to routers in the network"
In the first sentence I'd probably say "periodic" instead of "weekly".
The second sentence should be "to make" instead of "to makes"
Another super-minor typo "A variety of forms of managemen"  is missing
the letter "t" in "management"