MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0cf001cf9707$d88083e0$89818ba0$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <CABrd9SQi_MdO+utCNphgiSmPdzTyXiNprx3cC-BP8X=KFpN4Ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <0cf001cf9707$d88083e0$89818ba0$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 13:08:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CABrd9SR4MgM-YNZxkbmT8ajZzxxUCb1VsVv3HErwEGEHZomkJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ben Laurie <benl@google.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/bKxVqE2SkR5F-GwcnWG7VjWeAco
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-questions.all@tools.ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>,
 "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06
Precedence: list

On 3 July 2014 22:43, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 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 a=
ny other last call comments" so that we can respond to them there as part o=
f the consensus process. That is, of course, unless you feel that your comm=
ents fall into the escape clause in the last call announcement : "Exception=
ally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead."

I am following the Security Directorate process here:
http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview.

But sure, I'll send a copy to the IETF list.