[secdir] review draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00
"Hilarie Orman" <ho@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 24 December 2013 20:07 UTC
Return-Path: <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029FB1AE053; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:07:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 WrJr7s61AZDZ; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com (out03.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05CE1AE064; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 12:07:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]) by out03.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1VvYGD-0005Xv-Nm; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:07:25 -0700
Received: from [72.250.219.84] (helo=sylvester.rhmr.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1VvYGB-0003QU-Kf; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:07:25 -0700
Received: from sylvester.rhmr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sylvester.rhmr.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2ubuntu1) with ESMTP id rBOK6tVU021015; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:06:55 -0700
Received: (from hilarie@localhost) by sylvester.rhmr.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id rBOK6r4C021013; Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:06:53 -0700
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:06:53 -0700
Message-Id: <201312242006.rBOK6r4C021013@sylvester.rhmr.com>
From: Hilarie Orman <ho@alum.mit.edu>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18/OJ6/uW9olkh4qXTwf5a9
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 72.250.219.84
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: hilarie@purplestreak.com
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-Combo: **;iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
X-Spam-Relay-Country:
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com)
Cc: imc.shand@googlemail.com, draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] review draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Hilarie Orman <ho@alum.mit.edu>
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: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 20:07:33 -0000
Reclassification of RFC 1142 to Historic draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-historic-00 Do not be alarmed. 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. RFC1142 described an early version of the ISO protocol for intradomain routing and its use with IP. The description of the ISO protocol did not match the final version, and ever since there has been some confusion about what to cite with respect to this ISO standard. The reclassification of RFC1142 to historic may help alleviate the confusion. There are no security issues for consideration in this document. Hilarie
- [secdir] review draft-ietf-isis-rfc1142-to-histor… Hilarie Orman