[secdir] secdir review of draft-leiba-3967upd-downref-01
Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu> Tue, 29 November 2016 23:11 UTC
Return-Path: <tlyu@mit.edu>
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 30308129CBB; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:11:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4eesJrsjLXuY; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:11:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-8.mit.edu [18.7.68.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2C561294A8; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:11:00 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 12074425-77fff70000002ca0-b8-583e0b030be5
Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 03.B0.11424.30B0E385; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:10:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id uATNAw79018804; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:10:59 -0500
Received: from localhost (sarnath.mit.edu [18.18.1.190]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id uATNAvbn005510; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:10:58 -0500
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-leiba-3967upd-downref.all@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:10:57 -0500
Message-ID: <ldvoa0xhofy.fsf@sarnath.mit.edu>
Lines: 17
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrJIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nrsvMbRdhsHu2ocX3K/sYLWb8mchs 8WHhQxYHZo8lS34yBTBGcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGWseMtV0MVW0bzqN1MD4z+WLkZODgkBE4l5 X34wdjFycQgJtDFJzPh1kBnC2cgo8XDdWSYI5w2jxMvGT2AtbALSEscv7wJKcHCICPhIXL6m BhIWFrCQmDFtJytImEVAVeLrGR8Qk1dAV6KjKw2kgkeAU+LkzK1sIDavgCCQ/QRsILOAlsSN fy+ZJjDyzEKSmoUktYCRaRWjbEpulW5uYmZOcWqybnFyYl5eapGuhV5uZoleakrpJkZwqLio 7mCc89frEKMAB6MSD++EPtsIIdbEsuLK3EOMkhxMSqK8/44AhfiS8lMqMxKLM+KLSnNSiw8x SnAwK4nwSnHYRQjxpiRWVqUW5cOkpDlYlMR5/7t9DRcSSE8sSc1OTS1ILYLJynBwKEnwHuQE ahQsSk1PrUjLzClBSDNxcIIM5wEaHgFSw1tckJhbnJkOkT/FqMvxbvO7B0xCLHn5ealS4ryz QIoEQIoySvPg5oBjXIhx3ytGcaC3hHlXgFTxANMD3KRXQEuYgJa8fW0NsqQkESEl1cC4msts 9Udj94VrYw3t9zec2BOdf8raWPuf06LXLC9DFnBpqNwW/CGUryTxKbbCeaOu8hvGVqnfd/6e bv/3QPn3+VMK9VYcyluag7Y6yt28FLHyxU0TRm1zy1seZ+85GMtOyAlb8Z716abkZQ17Fz0/ uGPJJi3hxxOfLXvmVJmW1aCTMFEva+pzJZbijERDLeai4kQAcz8sjswCAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/UjTvTaCIxVjn5F9mN2iVMevb6pQ>
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-leiba-3967upd-downref-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: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 23:11:24 -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. 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. Summary: ready with nits The Security Considerations changes added in -01 seem good. Comment: Could the responsible AD annotate each "safe" normative downref (doesn't require community review), along with the rationale? (e.g., foundational or architecture document having Informational status) Or is that putting too much burden on the AD? I know this is a substantive comment late in the process, so feel free to disregard. -Tom