[secdir] Security review of draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03

"Hilarie Orman" <hilarie@purplestreak.com> Tue, 25 January 2011 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE7C3A6868 for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:17:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tLteX751Fmep for <secdir@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com (out02.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.232]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A563A6853 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.212]) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1PhnVW-0007Va-9s; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:20:46 -0700
Received: from 166-70-57-249.ip.xmission.com ([166.70.57.249] helo=fermat.rhmr.com) by mx02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <hilarie@purplestreak.com>) id 1PhnVT-0003R1-0s; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:20:46 -0700
Received: from fermat.rhmr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fermat.rhmr.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p0PILHYF025061; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:21:17 -0700
Received: (from ho@localhost) by fermat.rhmr.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p0PILHGK025060; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:21:17 -0700
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:21:17 -0700
Message-Id: <201101251821.p0PILHGK025060@fermat.rhmr.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: fermat.rhmr.com: ho set sender to hilarie using -f
From: "Hilarie Orman" <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-XM-SPF: eid=; ; ; mid=; ; ; hst=mx02.mta.xmission.com; ; ; ip=166.70.57.249; ; ; frm=hilarie@purplestreak.com; ; ; spf=none
X-XM-DomainKey: sender_domain=purplestreak.com; ; ; sender=hilarie@purplestreak.com; ; ; status=error
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.57.249
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: hilarie@purplestreak.com
X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa03 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-Combo: ;secdir@ietf.org
X-Spam-Relay-Country:
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:31:04 -0600)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mx02.mta.xmission.com)
Cc: acmorton@att.com
Subject: [secdir] Security review of draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Hilarie Orman <hilarie@purplestreak.com>
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 25 Jan 2011 18:17:49 -0000

Security review of draft-morton-ippm-rfc4148-obsolete-03

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 abstract explains the reasons for abandoning IPPM:

   This memo reclassifies RFC 4148, the IP Performance Metrics (IPPM)
   Registry as Obsolete, and withdraws the IANA IPPM Metrics Registry
   itself from use because it is obsolete.  The current registry
   structure has been found to be insufficiently detailed to uniquely
   identify IPPM metrics.  Despite apparent efforts to find current or
   even future users, no one has responded to the call for interest in
   the RFC 4148 registry during the second half of 2010.

I don't see any security impacts of this action, and I did read
the "security considerations", which I hope will be withdrawn before
submission to the RFC editor.

Hilarie