Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-21

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Thu, 05 January 2017 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
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 3192C12962A; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:20:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Quarantine-ID: <gkM3R9x1mMwn>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gkM3R9x1mMwn; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:20:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C30812961F; Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:20:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.202.67] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:19:25 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240607d4944caaa33c@[192.168.202.67]>
In-Reply-To: <879E76B64CF340468BF5E4DE504C2242C1364E@szxemi502-mbx.china.huawei.com >
References: <879E76B64CF340468BF5E4DE504C2242C1364E@szxemi502-mbx.china.huawei.com >
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:20:09 -0800
To: zhangdacheng <dacheng.zhang@huawei.com>, secdir <secdir@ietf.org>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/ePVZHVr5GjcoBY3YFcQaElPEbsw>
Cc: "draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall.all@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-ecrit-ecall-21
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: Thu, 05 Jan 2017 19:20:17 -0000

At 3:42 AM +0000 1/5/17, zhangdacheng wrote:

>  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.
>
>
>  The security considerations cites multiple RFCs. In those RFCs, the 
> security issues related with this work are extensively discussed, 
> although I have to look up those RFCs to find out how to deal with, 
> for example, DDoS attacks.
>
>  I think it would really helpful if authors can briefly introduce 
> what issues are discuss in those RFCs. Apart from this, this 
> document is ready for publication.

Thank you for your review, I appreciate it.  I added some text to 
mention the issues covered by RFC 5069, which I took to be the focus 
of your suggestion.

--Randy

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
If you can't annoy somebody there's little point in writing --Kingsley Amis