[secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Thu, 22 February 2018 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
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 B6E3B12D889; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:08:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 eJ60iBz_3-40; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:08:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x234.google.com (mail-qk0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3345512D883; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:08:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x234.google.com with SMTP id s188so7592202qkb.2; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:08:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=utEMXbdM/4TC+Yl3Ixj+VGUsJvz5LgYYnKE8OyQF4+Q=; b=tziic+Pr2YoN2DHUgCUR3ybnQOi5V98YtBmaCdF1aii6ytETXg5i3rcikEbo75zoal 93gcRGkfpyOrkLjhkFf9HUdZINao0jwXz32QiBSWYmCYqD0c97HBe+TgFJlu6JI33aWr /KuT1oL2o9YNwW5Ele63K6i100sO+5IX9nvQwechNCbm8ecGY/1QFkU+I83SoNpKtKsH P4GLX5E5lRHUc530zNU5eogXwZ3RhfnJV1T4lkpwveZB0epefukgP6oB/vqHG9WJ9JWf 9pmQ9ukMo9/yVaLCfjfsz3F2kWThHzQ4ZFbgeL8UaELe/u6/xz2BKXLCiunUSifxbVLQ LTTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=utEMXbdM/4TC+Yl3Ixj+VGUsJvz5LgYYnKE8OyQF4+Q=; b=f44i6z9YKvAsocCeheveAHJ+onGACR8gHZ8XahWIKF8V/3zdB3EnBZvB7C59bHGh8Q x1tWXYq4L9lIJxBJqmkjTXzvDss3VlEbMVm+N6Q0TR1M2l+hoHQZFNyQZS+MWs0ThLqx HCFXc1MCgwtgyqAkT2maHwR3iKEn2t+m8roOtZBrRcKKWvlIQCn+qFAhkti2jChchZZt AjhTpprtcQIXvOyGfpehvw3ukO8hMmfDH3aUYvpMo7Tc2QMqoeM9KGDUIb32rRssy/lf aP3bDWEm2bIUeY5kWwGpysWXHtvxtu37kxt6LQalsCrGUrvqs5VXeEEMxzLHxGA3WADv FNHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPBlj76WZy49CaAwrJac4pWuC1bizTBW3G2Kr51a+C9xsGjx+gyb s0uRm4e4bTvZoFbmgCTCr0E5D2b3tZQ4GTusH2AXGvnX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvDmhkGsxGiuWVouYm14FGGLtH77MsKkq1l1pUbVQMIujktrpuWOZ6D31sZXeOaTrbetFS7Y3riIeSD+stPZn0=
X-Received: by 10.55.154.207 with SMTP id c198mr12245653qke.313.1519322936869; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:08:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.137.180 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:08:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:08:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0cmcVjWbNrxCSEjbryCWFzG_BcNMT2mU0tubxzRXf41w0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "<iesg@ietf.org>" <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/g6HxtBNOYFc-rX8bDduR6we0FxU>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-rmcat-sbd-10
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 22 Feb 2018 18:09:00 -0000

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 summary of
the review is READY.

I am unqualified to weigh in on the heavy networking aspects of this
draft, but I nevertheless found it approachable and understandable. My
one minor editorial comment is that the section with parameters
describes the effects, but never describes what the parameters are.

Sincerely,
Watson