Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 12 March 2013 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 5278211E80E0 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.675
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.675 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L66+F0hbtCcR for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:46:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF7B11E80D3 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2CFdl3R010921; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:39:47 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-1045.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.16.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2CFdhja010874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:39:44 GMT
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Stephen Kent'" <kent@bbn.com>, "'Tsao, Tzeta'" <Tzeta.Tsao@cooperindustries.com>
References: <85A23E0910B2FB4B8EF60D0888CB083602658653@EVS2.nam.ci.root> <513F3CFF.2010506@bbn.com>
In-Reply-To: <513F3CFF.2010506@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:39:42 -0000
Message-ID: <03f001ce1f37$d304e9e0$790ebda0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03F1_01CE1F37.D3089360"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIrY366ZbZdYlxdxmbysueACRJffgK5UOLbl9HcDzA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: angel.lozano@upf.edu, mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca, vanesa.daza@upf.edu, secdir@ietf.org, jpv@cisco.com, "'Alexander, Roger'" <Roger.Alexander@cooperindustries.com>, mischa.dohler@cttc.es
Subject: Re: [secdir] SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:46:19 -0000

Yeah, sorry, that was my screw-up in the run-up to the IETF meeting. I missed
your review as needing work.
 
The authors have promised to work on this very soon, but if I don't see an
update in fairly short order I will punt the document to a later IESG call.
 
A
 
From: Stephen Kent [mailto:kent@bbn.com] 
Sent: 12 March 2013 14:35
To: Tsao, Tzeta
Cc: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca; secdir@ietf.org; angel.lozano@upf.edu;
vanesa.daza@upf.edu; mischa.dohler@cttc.es; Alexander, Roger; jpv@cisco.com;
adrian@olddog.co.uk
Subject: Re: SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01
 
Tzeta,

Thanks for the message, and the explanation.  I was asked to re-review the doc
because it
was scheduled for IESG review soon, which would imply that it was completed.

Feel free to send me email with any questions you have re my comments. I'm happy
to provide additional
details.

Steve
On 3/12/13 10:14 AM, Tsao, Tzeta wrote:
Hi Stephen,
 
It was just brought to my attention about your email on March 10 of the subject
SECDIR review of draft-ietf-roll-security-threats-01. I wish to point out that
it had been explicitly stated in the notice to the WG of that revision that it
still did not address SECDIR's comments. At this juncture, because of the
reorientation of the focus of the draft, it would seem better to wait out for
more input from the WG before starting to consider how to best address the
questions raised in your comments.
 
Let me assure you that there is no intention to side step your comments and any
such impression would mostly be due to my fault of not communicating
effectively.
 
Regards,
Tzeta