Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01

Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu> Wed, 31 August 2016 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <tlyu@mit.edu>
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 2457E12D77D; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-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 6dmz2IuNzBVo; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-6.mit.edu [18.7.68.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB02612D776; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:01:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 12074423-557ff70000005e87-e5-57c761def8ca
Received: from mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.36]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 85.65.24199.ED167C75; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:01:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-2.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id u7VN1ntu031018; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:01:50 -0400
Received: from localhost (sarnath.mit.edu [18.18.1.190]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id u7VN1mjG001054; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:01:49 -0400
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>
To: <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <ldv4m60r1h2.fsf@sarnath.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:01:48 -0400
In-Reply-To: <ldv4m60r1h2.fsf@sarnath.mit.edu> (Tom Yu's message of "Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:57:13 -0400")
Message-ID: <ldvy43cpmoz.fsf@sarnath.mit.edu>
Lines: 15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrPIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nonsv8Xi4wfpZJhY79/WxWcz4M5HZ 4sPChywOzB5LlvxkCmCM4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MrY+OEBa0E7a8WUZe2MDYydLF2MnBwSAiYS zWsWM3YxcnEICbQxSRx5chHK2cgoseLsVyjnDaPE/903GEFa2ASkJY5f3sXUxcjBISIgLPF7 MtgkZgEPiSuN89lBwsICPhKLd3OAhIUEdCX2Hz/NCmKzCKhKzP5xlxnE5hTIkFg/p5sdxOYF qtl+aB1YDY8Ap0TTkt3MEHFBiZMzn0CN15K48e8l0wRG/llIUrOQpBYwMq1ilE3JrdLNTczM KU5N1i1OTszLSy3SNdPLzSzRS00p3cQIDjsX5R2ML/u8DzEKcDAq8fA6vDkWLsSaWFZcmXuI UZKDSUmUVy3ueLgQX1J+SmVGYnFGfFFpTmrxIUYJDmYlEd65CUA53pTEyqrUonyYlDQHi5I4 b9eMA+FCAumJJanZqakFqUUwWRkODiUJ3kKQRsGi1PTUirTMnBKENBMHJ8hwHqDhuWDDiwsS c4sz0yHypxh1ORb8uL2WSYglLz8vVUqcNykeqEgApCijNA9uDjhdCDHue8UoDvSWMO9TkFE8 wFQDN+kV0BImoCUFdw6DLClJREhJNTCqVt4J1tZ9ka0kOb+87CBj0+HHh4X9zX87NLtf779U FFcvaPzknuCxxLzHc3K+xDPtZcjU3uT6a90Ow7K9t190TV07184nf9XhjCn/4m0yXmfofX6/ LN6G42RdsdhUARUd/eu5k94vW7XWScm1acbZ+K5z7edz3QTuBm+Jz2GdxzL93n8xzRIlluKM REMt5qLiRACDMgZb8gIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/ihZ0a0fEnERlPRfQv2fuQCb2ixI>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete.all@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 23:01:53 -0000

Sorry, resending with the correct draft email alias.

Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>; writes:

> 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
>
> The security considerations section of this document seems reasonable.
> Republishing obsolete MIBs that are explicitly marked as obsolete in
> their bodies sounds like a good idea.