IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-04

"Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 30 May 2012 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.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 1FE9E21F8748; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_6CONS_WORD=0.356]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3bybfz7fFY+w; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7E921F8747; Wed, 30 May 2012 13:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.61]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q4UKlidJ001003 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 May 2012 22:47:44 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.55]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB01.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.120.45.61]) with mapi; Wed, 30 May 2012 22:47:44 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael (Michael)" <michael.scharf@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: David Borman <David.Borman@quantum.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 22:47:42 +0200
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-04
Thread-Index: AQHNPnXIPFIPS9owW0+7AUuNti9CaZbi+xyAgAAC+4CAAAs/AP//voCg
Message-ID: <2A886F9088894347A3BE0CC5B7A85F3E891A9BB37B@FRMRSSXCHMBSE3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <4FC63731.7060409@cisco.com> <58B9B09F-ECA8-457E-B22C-34CE7A69CCFA@quantum.com> <B00101B3-C986-4283-87D4-EA125860F1C6@cisco.com> <EF0B56D9-99F2-49D0-AE22-457E6E1A7944@quantum.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF0B56D9-99F2-49D0-AE22-457E6E1A7944@quantum.com>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 May 2012 15:19:14 -0700
Cc: "<draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss.all@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss.all@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "<secdir@ietf.org>" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcpmss-04
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 30 May 2012 20:47:48 -0000

> >> I don't have a strong opinion about the current content of the 
> >> Security Considerations section.  My leaning is to just 
> leave it as 
> >> is, but I'd be fine with moving the content up to section 
> 5.4 as an 
> >> "Additional Consideration", and then have section 6, "Security 
> >> Considerations" just have a comment that there are no security 
> >> considerations, if folks generally feel that would be better.
> > 
> > I don't feel comfortable with a security consideration that 
> isn't, so I would lean towards your alternative proposal.
> 
> Ok, I'll move the content to section 5, and leave "Security 
> Considerations"
> empty, unless someone else objects to making that change.

Instead of an empty security considerations section, you could also add a sentence explaining that the document just clarifies what is mandated by RFC 1122, and that it thus does not result in new security issues.

According to the working group discussions and the WGLC feedback, TCPM is apparently not aware of any security issues with this draft, and I think that TCPM would be fine with mentioning this more explicitly.

Just a thought...

Michael (as document shepard)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email