Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ancp-framework-10
"OOGHE Sven" <Sven.Ooghe@alcatel-lucent.be> Tue, 07 July 2009 14:26 UTC
Return-Path: <Sven.Ooghe@alcatel-lucent.be>
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2AD3A6E60; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FKlVgYyt6sxB; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [62.23.212.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E649C3A6935; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:26:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRVELSBHS04.ad2.ad.alcatel.com (frvelsbhs04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [155.132.6.76]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id n67EPPEn022250; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:25:57 +0200
Received: from FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com ([155.132.6.52]) by FRVELSBHS04.ad2.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:25:48 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:25:47 +0200
Message-ID: <7168964CAC5C144685272595141B6DBA028CEFA3@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <039b01c9f8c3$a108a7e0$e319f7a0$@coopercain.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: secdir review of draft-ietf-ancp-framework-10
Thread-Index: Acn4w5iFLrA4q3muRTSpPrluE93lVAGSxbrg
References: <039b01c9f8c3$a108a7e0$e319f7a0$@coopercain.com>
From: OOGHE Sven <Sven.Ooghe@alcatel-lucent.be>
To: pat cain <pcain2@mail2.coopercain.com>, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ancp-framework@tools.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2009 14:25:48.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[D2BAEAE0:01C9FF0E]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 155.132.188.13
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:19:59 -0700
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ancp-framework-10
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:26:05 -0000
Pat Thanks for reviewing. I have changed the first sentence in the security considerations section according to your proposed wording. Regards Sven -----Original Message----- From: pat cain [mailto:pcain2@mail2.coopercain.com] Sent: maandag 29 juni 2009 16:12 To: secdir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-ancp-framework@tools.ietf.org Cc: iesg@ietf.org Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-ancp-framework-10 Hi, 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 defines a framework for an Access Node Control Mechanism between a Network Access Server and a DSLAM. It is informational. I have a mostly small comment on this document: The security considerations section points to "draft-ietf-ancp-security-threats that lists the security-related security threats". I read that document, too. It has more than threats in it; there a whole section on security requirements. I would add a small phrase to the security considerations of the framework to make sure the reader is aware that there are more requirements than just what is in the framework document. Maybe just add a few words to the first sentence of the security considerations section in the framework: "I develops a threat model [ and identifies requirements] for ANCP security...." Otherwise it looked okay to me. Pat Cain