Re: [secdir] Secdir telechat review of draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-06

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Brian Weis for the review.

Thanks for the update, Brian Haberman.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Brian Haberman
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Done!
>
>
> On 4/25/17 9:12 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> You probably should, to be honest, just for convention. But I'm willing to
>> defer to others on this topic.
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:22 AM, Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>      Thanks for the review. I will wait for the Security ADs to
>>> determine if they want a "blank" Security Considerations section added.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/14/17 1:53 PM, Brian Weis wrote:
>>>> Reviewer: Brian Weis
>>>> Review result: Ready
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> This five page document clarifies that the intent of the term "global"
>>>> in RFC 6809 is for a special-purpose address to be "globally
>>>> reachable". It also corrects some errors in the IANA Special-Purpose
>>>> Address Registries.
>>>>
>>>> Since the scope of "global" is clarified rather than changed, there
>>>> does not seem to be any additional security considerations.  None of
>>>> the error corrections introduce additional security considerations
>>>> either.  The authors obviously came to the same conclusion since they
>>>> did not include a Security Considerations section. This does not
>>>> concern me personally, and I'll leave it for the Security ADs to
>>>> determine if they prefer one added that states "there are no security
>>>> considerations".
>>>>
>>>> I consider the document Ready.
>>>>
>>>> Brian Weis
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen