[secdir] Re : SECDIR review of draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10

<lionel.morand@orange.com> Mon, 07 January 2019 07:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lionel.morand@orange.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C84AE12D4E9; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:14:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0d2Slk1T81cK; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:14:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from orange.com (mta241.mail.business.static.orange.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25125126BED; Sun, 6 Jan 2019 23:14:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.2]) by opfedar24.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 43Y68v0Wh4z5x3J; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 08:14:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [xx.xx.31.21]) by opfedar01.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 43Y68t6rdtzBrLp; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 08:14:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCAUBM8F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ( by OPEXCLILM6C.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 08:14:54 +0100
Received: from OPEXCAUBM41.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::857d:4f67:b0a7:10d7]) by OPEXCAUBM8F.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 08:14:54 +0100
From: <lionel.morand@orange.com>
To: Chris Lonvick <lonvick.ietf@gmail.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re=A0:_SECDIR_review_of_draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?10?=
Thread-Index: AQHUplivKBJnJye7aEK+diresqNzCg==
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 07:14:53 +0000
Message-ID: <23140_1546845295_5C32FC6E_23140_49_1_-sp22evww0mewcrd8ntm8lo0u-uy3uqt-oucx4m-4svon1n9pr-t6bz1y5xht88-fwnmsf-g2k503-u5f9nq-g8dq2qp2he5b4uxf3d-v4errb-utlf18ewruasbyvwxk-wmn70o33ydtr-ylrf933poh3x.1546845289253@email.android.com>
References: <5C30BFB2.2080004@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5C30BFB2.2080004@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_sp22evww0mewcrd8ntm8lo0uuy3uqtoucx4m4svon1n9prt6bz1y5xh_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/miWO8i5A2wJk2ly1V24D_DdLezY>
Subject: [secdir] =?iso-8859-1?q?Re=A0=3A_SECDIR_review_of_draft-ietf-dim?= =?iso-8859-1?q?e-doic-rate-control-10?=
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: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 07:14:59 -0000

Thank you for the review and the feedback.



-------- Message original --------
Objet : SECDIR review of draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control-10
De : Chris Lonvick
À : secdir@ietf.org,iesg@ietf.org,draft-ietf-dime-doic-rate-control.all@ietf.org
Cc :


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.

The summary of the review is Ready.

The specification proposes new AV Pairs for the Diameter Overload specification found in RFC 7683. The Security Considerations section of this Internet Draft is brief and only points to the security considerations of RFC 7683. The Security Considerations section of RFC 7683 is thorough and I believe that this is sufficient.

I briefly reviewed the ID and found no nits.

Best regards,


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.