Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-sidr-publication-09

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 10 January 2017 04:49 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B671129A8D; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 20:49:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 ikfkHkDZryH0; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 20:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 792991295BF; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 20:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3tyKLz3ggbz1Ht; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:49:47 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1484023787; bh=cXPZVqRzQ6MJR9FDxnv/1Q4nCK9Bz9mwBBbIk14fXak=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=rvGWHe4rfKy48hGG4gLRgDydSlHObXbqFUR4iVp0cN93kE31jErrjuQpSOHN3a+C1 7HZAx/zdlLEA4mosiDsWgnIIFbWSObHsDDhumI/Qgn7FV/v9/310LkyE2O7O8QuTbZ 57yDrrLK77fjU9frxapWzHi0JGtk1p0l7+laY/w0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w1Ao05obCQmi; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:49:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 05:49:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4EE3B717D61; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:49:42 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 4EE3B717D61
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476FC44836E7; Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:49:42 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 23:49:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20170110005512.78CCA461A613@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701092347320.30084@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1701061709510.3176@bofh.nohats.ca> <20170110005512.78CCA461A613@minas-ithil.hactrn.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/cnJwLmE5_rzj-QkiYezYfKu7V-A>
Cc: draft-ietf-sidr-publication.all@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-sidr-publication-09
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 10 Jan 2017 04:49:50 -0000

On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Rob Austein wrote:

> I'm not going to attempt to answer point by point, because that would
> drive us both nuts.  Instead, I'm going to answer a few specific
> points, then let you see if the text changes I made are satisfactory.
>
> Overall, this required a bit more new text than I would have preferred
> at the end of Last Call, but I think you identified some missing
> background information that needed adding, and none of the new text is
> intended to change the protocol itself in any way, so I'm hoping this
> will be acceptable to all parties.

The text and your email clarified a lot. Thanks!

> I have not yet submitted the updated I-D (-10).  Will do so tomorrow
> unless I hear loud screaming, as our AD wants an updated I-D this
> week.  For the moment, you can see the updated version and a diffs at:
>
> https://subvert-ietf.hactrn.net/sidr-publication/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10.txt
> https://subvert-ietf.hactrn.net/sidr-publication/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-10-from-09.diff.html

I've read the changes. Those along with the clarifications in your email
resolve all my issues. So from a SecDir review point of view, this
document is now Ready.

Thank you,

Paul