Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-richardson-roll-applicability-template-01

Michael Richardson <> Thu, 21 February 2013 04:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B14221F8D0D; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:25:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.582
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ASuD8SGhGfdA; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:25:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5941421F8D0B; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 20:25:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 059FB20168; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:32:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 179) id D9596102F5; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:24:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FDE820007; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:24:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Dan Harkins <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:24:45 -0500
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-richardson-roll-applicability-template-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 04:25:55 -0000

Dan, thanks for the work.

>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Harkins <> writes:
    Dan> Boilerplate aside, I hope that this document is not being processed
    Dan> by the IESG because I don't think it's suitable for publishing even as
    Dan> an Informational RFC (it's intended status). It seems to have the right
    Dan> sections to properly articulate the ROLL Applicability Statement but
    Dan> there is no content there so it is not suitable for any purpose
    Dan> as a

*THIS* document is not intended to be published.  It remains an ID to be
copied.  I would have hoped the context for this advance review would
have been communicated better....

The idea is that current and future Applicability statements will use
the table of contents provided.   So, before secdir is asked to review
the security implications of a "real" document, we want to figure out
what major sections might be *missing* from the table of contents.

So I will attempt to fill in the Introduction with an actual
Introduction to explain this document.

Here are two example applicability statements which we are trying to get
into this format.

If I have my way, many of these documents will be further reduced in
scope, resulting in many more than our originally chartered four such

]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]        |   ruby on rails    [