[secdir] secdir re-review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-13
Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU> Tue, 17 December 2013 04:03 UTC
Return-Path: <tlyu@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EED51AE019; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:03:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.139
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 CluxkfSXF3BH; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu [18.9.25.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F12F41AE05C; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 20:03:44 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: 1209190f-b7fb86d000000c36-84-52afcd1f4ffd
Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-4.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 2C.4C.03126.F1DCFA25; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:03:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id rBH43fdH004939; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:03:43 -0500
Received: from cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (cathode-dark-space.mit.edu [18.18.1.96]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id rBH43dF2009204 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:03:40 -0500
Received: (from tlyu@localhost) by cathode-dark-space.mit.edu (8.12.9.20060308) id rBH43dLA013250; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:03:39 -0500 (EST)
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement.all@tools.ietf.org
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 23:03:38 -0500
Message-ID: <ldvbo0gnmxx.fsf@cathode-dark-space.mit.edu>
Lines: 9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrDIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrSt/dn2QwdcTFhY7urQtZvyZyGzx YeFDFgdmjyVLfjJ5fLn8mS2AKYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr4+e+BewFc1gqTky8ydrAuI25i5GD Q0LAROLTf+0uRk4gU0ziwr31bF2MXBxCArOZJHZdnccO4WxklFj3tQXKOcckcfh3LzOE08Uo ceL7ATaQfhGBeIlfnX3sILawgL3ElvOHmUBWsAlISxxdXAYSZhFQlbjxsY0VxOYVsJA4Oe0r M4jNI8AhsffOCai4oMTJmU9YQGxmAS2JG/9eMk1g5JuFJDULSWoBI9MqRtmU3Crd3MTMnOLU ZN3i5MS8vNQiXRO93MwSvdSU0k2M4ECT5N/B+O2g0iFGAQ5GJR5ejtnrg4RYE8uKK3MPMUpy MCmJ8truAQrxJeWnVGYkFmfEF5XmpBYfYpTgYFYS4WUpAMrxpiRWVqUW5cOkpDlYlMR5b3LY BwkJpCeWpGanphakFsFkZTg4lCR4K88ANQoWpaanVqRl5pQgpJk4OEGG8wANTwGp4S0uSMwt zkyHyJ9iVJQS550KkhAASWSU5sH1whLBK0ZxoFeEeTVBqniASQSu+xXQYCagwc/XrAMZXJKI kJJqYLSJvnzr4NMPO65Ok5S1Wzzjh3tYJCvvGuv/F/lY/y8R715dLLr/7MdrupEpU3smtVz5 PPG60Z5/yv62n7dd7JvT/0w6q//AmWLObQemb5hjoNywXF1N7OVef8b42V4O7Hym09ZnGjMl 3yr2zPs5K4H5/svDQc/SfBbb9EbnXNrgIDt/tsGKr7FKLMUZiYZazEXFiQDf88Q03wIAAA==
Subject: [secdir] secdir re-review of draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement-13
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 04:03:46 -0000
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 previous concerns I have had with a prior revision of this document seem to have been resolved adequately. There appear to be no security concerns introduced by revisions since my last review.