Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-06

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Done!


On 4/25/17 9:12 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> You probably should, to be honest, just for convention. But I'm willing to
> defer to others on this topic.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Brian,
>>      Thanks for the review. I will wait for the Security ADs to
>> determine if they want a "blank" Security Considerations section added.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> On 4/14/17 1:53 PM, Brian Weis wrote:
>>> Reviewer: Brian Weis
>>> Review result: Ready
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> This five page document clarifies that the intent of the term "global"
>>> in RFC 6809 is for a special-purpose address to be "globally
>>> reachable". It also corrects some errors in the IANA Special-Purpose
>>> Address Registries.
>>>
>>> Since the scope of "global" is clarified rather than changed, there
>>> does not seem to be any additional security considerations.  None of
>>> the error corrections introduce additional security considerations
>>> either.  The authors obviously came to the same conclusion since they
>>> did not include a Security Considerations section. This does not
>>> concern me personally, and I'll leave it for the Security ADs to
>>> determine if they prefer one added that states "there are no security
>>> considerations".
>>>
>>> I consider the document Ready.
>>>
>>> Brian Weis
>>>
>>
>>
>