Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 04 July 2014 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799951B2AE3; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:12:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
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 xz0Sy-uXpiB4; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FE181B2AD3; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 08:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s64FCQ8q008127; Fri, 4 Jul 2014 16:12:26 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (82-71-74-86.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.71.74.86]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s64FCNBf008095 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Jul 2014 16:12:24 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Ben Laurie'" <benl@google.com>
References: <CABrd9SQi_MdO+utCNphgiSmPdzTyXiNprx3cC-BP8X=KFpN4Ew@mail.gmail.com> <0cf001cf9707$d88083e0$89818ba0$@olddog.co.uk> <CABrd9SR4MgM-YNZxkbmT8ajZzxxUCb1VsVv3HErwEGEHZomkJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABrd9SR4MgM-YNZxkbmT8ajZzxxUCb1VsVv3HErwEGEHZomkJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 16:12:18 +0100
Message-ID: <0e6601cf979a$59c42be0$0d4c83a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGtyNQpOj8eDn9j3srLWrUG7dsJjgH1UdaCAlIVYjKbsWeDEA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1017-20796.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--13.630-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--13.630-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: HXSqh3WYKfunykMun0J1whiTH2TyLmz+1kqyrcMalqXFJnEpmt9OE4r7 HXyN6mJM/z6hPQmCTlv2UlIkcWMFbA5xGkgZNT4Q8eSmTJSmEv1R3sGN+j7mNBHHVlBjhe3y2Uw BLM8az1QFtJDHvWPuiDeT288mssTU1G8rrdJV3qAF8rFt9xmDKToSfZud5+GgNOnYXKcDRxCNZk luV6XYGe9ECUe5voFdSHCGonA+tRbxlOJuQNHlfe9VsdrlGzy3Pj366R4tj3WbKItl61J/ybLn+ 0Vm71Lcq7rFUcuGp/EgBwKKRHe+r/6zrNjMVVuOkWieinlg6/+7CwCL6zmFtnKaVGMyPwNCej/q PJhYD4g=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/hn6Fm4cHjKcVWo52sj7ey_Qzk9U
Cc: draft-ietf-pce-questions.all@tools.ietf.org, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 15:12:32 -0000

Thanks Ben,

Much appreciated. I think your comments as Last Call comments deserve public discussion as they might need substantial changes to the document, so the issue is one of establishing consensus.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Laurie [mailto:benl@google.com]
> Sent: 04 July 2014 13:08
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: The IESG; secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pce-questions.all@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Security review of draft-ietf-pce-questions-06
> 
> On 3 July 2014 22:43, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; wrote:
> > Hi Ben,
> >
> > Thanks for reading and letting us know your thoughts.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Could I please ask you to re-send your mail to the IETF list "just like any other
> last call comments" so that we can respond to them there as part of the
> consensus process. That is, of course, unless you feel that your comments fall
> into the escape clause in the last call announcement : "Exceptionally, comments
> may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead."
> 
> I am following the Security Directorate process here:
> http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview.
> 
> But sure, I'll send a copy to the IETF list.