IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <rifaat.ietf@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 0CE401200C1; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 WeKE9C65S0uF; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22d.google.com (mail-vk0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22d]) (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 E5BD912426E; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id z204so50115813vkd.1; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=EwKKSCt1lg8HDGqCORZE2YmfYQdBZpL8JB/7v709AVg=; b=k8FqeTbZXQ0Jsu/rYEHlpMkM0sJkS2BaJ4Ybu2Z5jxTnEMh1KGSxUFLFJsNdwEYf2u 6FFKl5GYhbRQw3yCuTuZQ+9OGPsLNaV9N5yPHqEI13l709pOethqKgel10xWA3jmTFN4 G51J81aXYepnihzPel1Ycl7xzVOtBvymnZqZPFxUIu5s1N8hBxkULUMKGdPzzKUqcH28 sptsHmhEjJtw/ld4akoRgLHD/MhKJVnydYPq3kNa8C2OlrUNVeiR/NwVG9MTDtRhwUlY z/z3nmkv8ndYZ3j+IQwU4fRT5prZnetMsScehCpRQQGBeCx8euZ+WIWpiJQADSzL/fCx 7Tkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EwKKSCt1lg8HDGqCORZE2YmfYQdBZpL8JB/7v709AVg=; b=gkM7SDhYnDAmz/W4SqIYi/tIajOTCegM5jhkG0dc8LKKsVybydch8WuR/WF7BmyJcW ts5i80c6uHvOm38+zFD8Twf35QuKxIypW2cqHVqNHYp6oM+e5aQwVc1f1Hd8/ChSLQMP eRmHn+jFlIRVD9lEe0H0SmqYNDV7411HFYNCsBxuLX5Xm6VtGWWFPuUY/XbYALRnH7e7 NDG1nL3vuEaGdw4Rm3G/3maG9K1RYjnOP102zH9jzB2KL71oIsKv3aPIJt7MEmmYuITP XyN8eAmAK7VReJAqVc+yoY9TmWyE0h3C9EsURHqYbekL+CX63yfZwcIIUBozG0dXY786 e1dA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3wixeAgjac9pOZiIQ8ZKySWnp/sTEC0qi+OoGamp90WutxjmfZ0JNFnu01q+hvhUcc9ESVYBf9+otyJg==
X-Received: by 10.176.67.133 with SMTP id l5mr18239977ual.73.1491501927896; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.85.82 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 11:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH76f3sKPaRbbvgCFyqSUtp_zupfY7h2BukHK44TqGVbFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGL6epLwPY=B0q2t+Qin8DHRy8oVh4hFofD1QeYvb3vAM7PTQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbuEH5npwx76m19zMT-uZNK0cA1Rpkyjth5ZSoMUmv5YDwXRA@mail.gmail.com> <4D7F4AD313D3FC43A053B309F97543CF25F6AA27@njmtexg5.research.att.com> <CAHbuEH76f3sKPaRbbvgCFyqSUtp_zupfY7h2BukHK44TqGVbFw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 14:05:27 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGL6ep+GLS+4dPyk943qOaE+MrGexg==8_D7s9=+411GhzXMNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <acmorton@att.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt@ietf.org" <draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c09dc5a982252054c835a0b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/iIoBexqReko2c9j9Xg7EZuC-M2c>
Subject: Re: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09
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, 06 Apr 2017 18:05:31 -0000

Sounds good to me.

Regards,
 Rifaat


On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <
kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Al,
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 12:27 PM, MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <acmorton@att.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Kathleen and Rifaat,
> >
> > instead of
> > ... forward packets to 'trusted' tools, ...
> > we could say
> > ... forward packets to SP-controlled tools,
> >
>
> I do like that better as it gets directly to the point of what the
> contributor intended, I think.
>
> > which seems correct for this section:
> > 3.1.2.  SP Content Monitoring of Applications
>
> I'll make the update as I think I have the running draft with the
> appendix reference changes.
>
> Thank you!
> >
> > Al
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kathleen Moriarty [mailto:kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2017 11:10 AM
> >> To: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
> >> Cc: secdir@ietf.org; The IESG; draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: SecDir review of draft-mm-wg-effect-encrypt-09
> >>
> >> Hi Rifaat,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your review!  We had #1 queued up for the next revision.
> >> Trusted had single quotes around it because it isn't the term of a
> >> product or well known term, but trusted by the organization.  I don't
> >> like the word trust because it is loaded and used differently by many.
> >> If others think we should remove that or the RFC editor, that's fine.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kathleen
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
> >> <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> 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.
> >> >
> >> > Summary: Ready with nits
> >> >
> >> > The document describes security and management functions that might be
> >> > impacted by the increased use of encryption.
> >> > The goal of the document is to only list the potential problems, not
> >> to
> >> > propose
> >> > solutions to these problems.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > nits:
> >> >
> >> > 1. The document refers to an Appendix in multiples places, which is
> >> now
> >> > section 7.
> >> > 2. Page 18, second line: the word 'trusted' has quotes around it; is
> >> there a
> >> > reason for that?
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >  Rifaat
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Kathleen
>
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email