[secdir] SECDIR review of draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-01

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Wed, 01 March 2017 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 370B91295EE; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:37:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 qUdxKIpLuIjm; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22f.google.com (mail-io0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22f]) (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 C1C5D1295ED; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:37:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id j18so34757154ioe.2; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:37:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=x0eBD0L5EIYvxMGOPPcSkINxTSnGeNZMrdJV5b9z6vM=; b=t2uzlrql5Oa6AtR6c2E+Q1c1CpLHjFYp/zF8X6/cBuTrn9t0YemqybZ5FZ4KGolMTd CjjgaO9svw59wq8LRnyRLbWqLxIJtiTL1YLIlzmUuiN3o8njd8Xpb64ey3msIiUTsWfV LtUExWhSlyd+BrMqJKU76OHxhn3un/duMRvuqhrnTVdF8AS3gqIxfiBNeUa4fywvM+R8 cSd66whP4zMdg+hDHYSBNVCLTAoTDuIglpyJidPRXMEQWEFDcp9EhFsSWi42S4q0tPTu rXn47d8OszEsOXZpNRzywRkEbRVpxg6Nc5MCC6AUgu2/Rk75/LZcc2nwYqNWm6AzQwJ8 3opg==
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:cc; bh=x0eBD0L5EIYvxMGOPPcSkINxTSnGeNZMrdJV5b9z6vM=; b=DJtmotqjvym9WU0rdnqp01ZVgajyC8xegHM7WEXgKJDoozP455qmce2+aoXOc4F61l FYxTQEB4EGGyHNjfGcnCtld4s7YqvvkcNPIOBR4qMXziuvoiQ6ugoANcslQbojiS1mTb eghpQg/+tsYAeE9poc9lrdPku1msufGsWwGkxFyaqAiK4k6139k+Yq6Y2u/SlpkJxtg6 NlpJBybf/jolo7HU/CK6UJ1180NMD0R31pzIOfbyEiYZrv1hQmW/cepPQOXzeSmOJUyR Y1R+SqQ0lFcz8HilWh/T/NHPU25b5xFNLea1jUaRVkGSTETZAVrN+DVM0s6Nf/FDUrZU 25cw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nv4mlax7AI7+6YbJBqZ32hlePEW4SY6C3/5sO22dXym/F4lD/ZJorzSfM/0+7CITDtFjccANTytTJOhA==
X-Received: by 10.107.48.142 with SMTP id w136mr8670898iow.16.1488386228103; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:37:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.135.215 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 08:36:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:36:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEGa015oQ_SmYtzeorwPPRZGYzPGtGKQH+z8mpLrBDs_Sg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-leiba-rfc2119-update.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11444ad26a3f960549adec5b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/QXCjzZpI4PcQLkzesw7OTx3yr8o>
Cc: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-leiba-rfc2119-update-01
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:37:11 -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. Document
editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last
call comments.

This document merely clarifies the significance of capitalization of the
implementation requirement key words of RFC 2119. It's Security
Considerations section correctly states that there are none.

It is Ready except for a trivial editorial nit. In the sentence

   In many IETF documents several words are used to signify the
   requirements in the specification, when they are in all capitals as
   shown below.

I believe there should either be no comma or it should be re-ordered so
there are two commas as below.

   In many IETF documents several words, when they are in all
   capitals as shown below, are used to signify the requirements
   in the specification.

The automatic nits checker has two incorrect complaints that should be
ignored:

   1. that "NOT RECOMMENDED" occurs in the document but not in the
   documents RFC 2119 key words list, which is just because the document is
   talking about "NOT RECOMMENDED", and
   2. in contradiction, that the document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords
   but has RFC 2119 boilerplate, which is just because the document is talking
   about such boilerplate.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com