Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-07

Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net> Tue, 25 May 2021 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sbanks@encrypted.net>
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 EFC6F3A13E7; Tue, 25 May 2021 09:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 rNYed789wqL9; Tue, 25 May 2021 09:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xyz.hosed.xyz (xyz.hosed.xyz [71.114.67.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F9443A13E3; Tue, 25 May 2021 09:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xyz.hosed.xyz (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE11813C1D86; Tue, 25 May 2021 12:21:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at xyz.hosed.xyz
Received: from xyz.hosed.xyz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xyz.hosed.xyz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3gKoMHHDA3F7; Tue, 25 May 2021 12:21:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [172.16.12.111] (c-73-71-250-98.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.71.250.98]) by xyz.hosed.xyz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D09713C09A8; Tue, 25 May 2021 12:21:32 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Sarah Banks <sbanks@encrypted.net>
In-Reply-To: <162169730408.30071.8159768796287685820@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 09:21:31 -0700
Cc: secdir@ietf.org, bmwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7AFEE702-7731-45A2-85E9-5DAFA936033E@encrypted.net>
References: <162169730408.30071.8159768796287685820@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/iGv_gX2_AvZNv9_FAQtuP-Mx-6M>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 25 May 2021 16:21:39 -0000

Hi Robert,
    Thank you for your review, and your comments. The authors are reviewing the feedback and will update with accepted changes shortly.

Thank you,
Sarah (Doc Shepherd)

> On May 22, 2021, at 8:28 AM, Robert Sparks via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> 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.
> 
> This document is essentially ready for publication as an Informational RFC, but
> with nits.
> 
> Document reviewed: draft-ietf-bmwg-evpntest-07
> 
> This document describes a set of lab-environment characterization tests to be
> performed on isolated networks.
> 
> The document has basic formatting issues (line and page length) that should be
> addressed before submission for publication as an RFC.
> 
> The document does not discuss how the use of any of the mechanisms discussed in
> RFC7432 (and the RFCs it relies on) for improving the security characteristics
> of the protocols in use would affect the measurements being made, though it
> seems to suggest that the lab mimic production configuration. Perhaps that
> could be stated more clearly.
>