Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-07
"Scott G. Kelly" <scott@hyperthought.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 13:38 UTC
Return-Path: <scott@hyperthought.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 BD43C1AE226 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:38:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=unavailable
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 z415b4WTKak4 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp106.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp106.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.106]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97111AD9B6 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:38:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp14.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id B4BF52B80B6; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:38:17 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: OK
Received: from app8.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay.iad3a.rsapps.net [172.27.255.110]) by smtp14.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8F6522B80AF; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:38:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hyperthought.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app8.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7DA280042; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:38:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: scott@hyperthought.com, from: scott@hyperthought.com) with HTTP; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:38:17 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 05:38:17 -0800
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@hyperthought.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-Type: plain
In-Reply-To: <52A9B085.3050301@cisco.com>
References: <1386851231.882518471@apps.rackspace.com> <52A9B085.3050301@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1386855497.519617520@apps.rackspace.com>
X-Mailer: webmail7.0
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis.all@tools.ietf.org, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:38:25 -0000
On Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:48am, "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> said: > Hi Scott, > > Please note, from section 1. > > Please note that IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module was not transfered to IEEE > and remains as defined in RFC 5066. This memo provides an updated > security considerations section for that module, since the original > RFC did not list any security consideration for IF-CAP-STACK-MIB. > > Regards, Benoit Wow, really sorry about my error. On a train, in a hurry, and I had the same document open in 2 tabs, so I compared it with itself. No wonder the sections were identical (doh!). I read through the security considerations section, and it seems reasonable to me. --Scott >> 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. >> >> >From the abstract: >> >> This document updates RFC 5066. It amends that specification by >> informing the internet community about the transition of the EFM-CU- >> MIB module from the concluded IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB >> Working Group to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics >> Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 working group. >> >> The security considerations section appears to be identical to RFC5066. Given the >> stated purpose of the document, this seems appropriate. >> >> --Scott >> >> >> > >
- [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc50… Scott G. Kelly
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-r… Benoit Claise
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-r… Scott G. Kelly
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-r… Benoit Claise
- Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-r… Edward Beili