Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-leiba-3967upd-downref-01
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 29 November 2016 23:34 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 6FC1E129527; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:34:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 C871tcMijv8h; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:34:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x235.google.com (mail-qt0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9DDA127A91; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:34:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x235.google.com with SMTP id p16so171666790qta.0; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:34:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=M3VbUpr55j8PxAxDSAEORxnrrVX4JD8/r6j4sCQXcLQ=; b=0BHurrezTqvwSFNTuOg4ivqQTSlPyrk8UgJ16fzlgLDuFuuxblbpFTJ4KUdpkUwQ6V hMHt9T+qYQ7wAUPu5wjSPDxgZCX/LOKT/17VX2sr1cjyvyucM78TUj88cqTziyujL0cR 0nYzEa8gI4xT2p1WQt5hn1VfR9Zc8gpP/ltAiC5cTZa6smm/qg7KZcl2pEwG93zH/8TP +Gc5Nh47laZr1jeHdpB+qPRpyIbhb88kvMDMNGiojnOVvpbDzD+NJ3NRwTN3SBtM2LdP E4Tcz+/8LGtBfvX4F3fv52TP1G7oMftr6CDyXMFIAxEbRyHaRJ6fzjjIMIBPjsHHvPgj e5bQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=M3VbUpr55j8PxAxDSAEORxnrrVX4JD8/r6j4sCQXcLQ=; b=Tbbxg7fqQGgQUBQh5YMZJx3gek1+ZqzE2ddV+VyA0q+m6KuhWbC1pwcw1uwGhixolQ yiOUQLg0zJYegb+2gObX6hPZ6uMa2TDCp3GwIlIMepG5jEcttuXTn4ld1XZ3SWC8uKKE D+AeLhCwJ0WHo18ixz5T9zXWfBMu3fme1V9ZkddOel1EbXr2d+h2H1EHBDOaoErLGXXp eKXAM8b9MeWDReW4HtVLb3Uz1iC7swTjGGd4Jggf4NPq2QvDUW9R/p8R62ktqICgMBlV 9St/1cat5ig2+t4I8IX9crJZXW+ogYshxMepKaQE7xuF/PxRWTHExzxExPAGpNDy5WZV n9cA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00BXG/wtTkHXk1vqnD0mzJWsVfxE9va1mvorMQPHE28XHkMCRS/CvweQhcm6u6Zn433Xl45A78vSO3m5A==
X-Received: by 10.237.62.169 with SMTP id n38mr26556149qtf.177.1480462456926; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:34:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.140.41.177 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:34:16 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ldvoa0xhofy.fsf@sarnath.mit.edu>
References: <ldvoa0xhofy.fsf@sarnath.mit.edu>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:34:16 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: xXZr09bPYzb-2qIvlzlDGjZ5MZQ
Message-ID: <CALaySJL8ioOMv1pLT=2J0dB8Q=SZ1XtvhydZHUDtwF8h51whGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/on8qhH2XCEabzpZyces7qL4h_L0>
Cc: draft-leiba-3967upd-downref.all@ietf.org, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-leiba-3967upd-downref-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: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 23:34:38 -0000
Hi, Tom, and thanks for the review. > The Security Considerations changes added in -01 seem good. Great; thanks for the check. > Comment: Could the responsible AD annotate each "safe" normative downref > (doesn't require community review), along with the rationale? (e.g., > foundational or architecture document having Informational status) Or is > that putting too much burden on the AD? I know this is a substantive > comment late in the process, so feel free to disregard. I'm happy to put text in for that, if the IESG thinks it's a good idea. I'll let them discuss it and Ben can let me know. Barry