[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-16

Vincent Roca via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 21 July 2021 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6052E3A1A89; Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Vincent Roca via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: <secdir@ietf.org>
Cc: alto@ietf.org, draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.34.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <162687883633.10402.5545650896931874658@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Vincent Roca <vincent.roca@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 07:47:16 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/SRI19_SHBQLicNZJ_wuiKxaHcKg>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-alto-performance-metrics-16
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 21 Jul 2021 14:47:17 -0000

Reviewer: Vincent Roca
Review result: Ready

Hello,

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 "Security considerations" section extensively refers to RFC 7285
which makes sense. I have no comment.

I consider this document as "READY" from the secdir point of view.

Minor comment: the "TE" acronym is used without being defined 
(it is only the case in references)

Regards,     Vincent