Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-08

Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com> Mon, 17 December 2012 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <bew@cisco.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 A72D621F8B48; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:20:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dO4k3lJ+LZKJ; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:20:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F68B21F8B16; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:20:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1406; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1355768448; x=1356978048; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=YdoBTJNzqdxlVq6V8tdL5aaaBRkyGP3zO+ibORKnZe4=; b=WzjkHb2ZzNnQDeYQi3Bh38+/2rpvZk6hpZjDAw4KKgUe3MrHR8NBA25k xXc+6RZ0K/QR/geYDrxYN0JTTomnA7Y5EhZA3zwpMu6bptnrp5MYZ6DQD 6ul7sxS3/2GVBH/Puttoi1HsnmBwQNNaLFwPxiBTT/0Kiwg55KrnOAGLR s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,303,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="64222292"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Dec 2012 18:20:48 +0000
Received: from dhcp-128-107-147-77.cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-147-77.cisco.com [128.107.147.77]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBHIKmnc002190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:20:48 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Brian Weis <bew@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <EF4348D391D0334996EE9681630C83F021FF7BAE@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:20:52 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <53C93463-26E2-450C-855C-397DE3247317@cisco.com>
References: <2D9BAC01-1B3C-4D5A-84AD-CD8CA8FCCAE3@cisco.com> <EF4348D391D0334996EE9681630C83F021FEC7B8@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <1BC70302-9D09-479C-B9A6-01F9C70F70DF@cisco.com> <EF4348D391D0334996EE9681630C83F021FF7BAE@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com>
To: "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <rogaglia@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "<draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility.all@tools.ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility.all@tools.ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-sidr-algorithm-agility-08
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:20:55 -0000

Hi Roque,

On Dec 17, 2012, at 8:02 AM, "Roque Gagliano (rogaglia)" <rogaglia@cisco.com>; wrote:

> Hi Brian,
> 
>> This sounds like a good clarification. Whereas Suite C product sets may be incomplete (due to expiration of certificates) they are still considered valid until Phase 4 has completed. The only suggestion I might have is to change "remove" to "remove or revoke".
> 
> We normally use the term "remove" only as there are too many combinations for revocation in this case. Please note that Algorithm C will only be deprecated at the next phase, so we are not even asking for the revocation of the material anyways.

I take your point that Algorithm C isn't deprecated until the next phase ... your original wording is fine.

Thanks,
Brian

> 
> Regards,
> Roque
> 
> 
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Brian
>> 
>>>> Nits:
>>>> - Section 3, "Corresponds" definition: s/Resoureces/Resources/
>>>> - Section 4.1, "End Of Life (EOL) Date definition: s/is MUST/MUST/
>>>> - Section 7, last paragraph. The final sentence would be clearer if it read "Since Suite C products are being deprecated during Phase 4, a CA may revoke certificates issued under Suite C without revoking them under Suite A." Ignore if you don't agree.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks! Will Change for next version.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Brian
>>> 
>> 
>