Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06

Ben Laurie <> Fri, 04 July 2014 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436581B2D68 for <>; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 05:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.03
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FrAfdWve4If2 for <>; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 05:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5881B2D63 for <>; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 05:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x3so1399299qcv.38 for <>; Fri, 04 Jul 2014 05:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XlhqoxhQ8iE2ZdPkZ7N+qOYzF7x3L2L8eIH+Uymvk5c=; b=lnVzES93JAirl4QsmGFzM6WCYP/lpfI+lvHbrq/FD1G6d+XEodo7bagrzUf48e4pLs tXXK4aT5PI3E0izE9RsAHJaPwEESEq42zQrEgeSjBHFcEtjBYsdgZifLaK+jIn7zFRQD BOkgN/5TUV/HKjyKqLfW8TfMpyBFJW4zRXNXYHkEh/jcil2WF/eOKE7rkxZXNt3x4zTz n4aKJmU2BhSx6nxcy6hwW4f168TH0BeDIOzqxfQf3R4GK4xW+g+RoY7Hm+TBbDXOspzh TPDY9SxKZkkTasQPAaeOZvFL+so8r9yEEzYvc5W5uZn4R3qcr3ztk+nGUG42Dsh3p48d mjCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=XlhqoxhQ8iE2ZdPkZ7N+qOYzF7x3L2L8eIH+Uymvk5c=; b=F1z/yYnmAb74cTxL2sIw+zbv5JuCBRsZIrWuVW53tfVTyx0Vg87U5ADpBZpRMRi89z goAzcGT+k9cfsxiKmMuj4NuGk62a1/19Exh+6CVLnAcctgtAEVryoekXFVA/ab9WUKUV tmrPnH5leWdYUKmnwwywibf5gA1sqTCg/2ycpIRZ/v+w/66YX4DnGvlXxYOxGxL2rx06 auXmdu2CNRDePaxx3IBsUxc2BNFAJuugjfD4cM3EjBkLPIgYxaSEodFDYKD1WfCi0Y6W jT9v929M6+xogDf2GJr+V3hXuPUTdF2jLU+0IBmwb5bsaEejKaHEavIa4eiiWfyARG+2 xAkw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnLdOObMWJU/kQcXiB18TPHt7oYqOAFjqSdNm+VnlieP5oPgSLY2ueavKixEfh/rnZGxyfz
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id u9mr17826684qak.82.1404475708981; Fri, 04 Jul 2014 05:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 05:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0cf001cf9707$d88083e0$89818ba0$>
References: <> <0cf001cf9707$d88083e0$89818ba0$>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 13:08:28 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Ben Laurie <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc:, The IESG <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 12:08:31 -0000

On 3 July 2014 22:43, Adrian Farrel <>; wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> Thanks for reading and letting us know your thoughts.
>> 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.
> Could I please ask you to re-send your mail to the IETF list "just like any other last call comments" so that we can respond to them there as part of the consensus process. That is, of course, unless you feel that your comments fall into the escape clause in the last call announcement : "Exceptionally, comments may be sent to instead."

I am following the Security Directorate process here:

But sure, I'll send a copy to the IETF list.