[secdir] Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03

Shawn M Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com> Sat, 09 January 2016 03:48 UTC

Return-Path: <shawn.emery@oracle.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7B61A01F7 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 19:48:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UUw79ocE1VXy for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 19:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7D561A01F4 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 19:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com []) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u093mAZN016653 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 9 Jan 2016 03:48:11 GMT
Received: from userv0122.oracle.com (userv0122.oracle.com []) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u093m9UY030295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 9 Jan 2016 03:48:09 GMT
Received: from abhmp0003.oracle.com (abhmp0003.oracle.com []) by userv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u093m8r8005973; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 03:48:08 GMT
Received: from [] (/ by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 19:48:08 -0800
Message-ID: <56908353.5050200@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 20:49:39 -0700
From: Shawn M Emery <shawn.emery@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS i86pc; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: secdir@ietf.org
References: <56595640.5060206@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <56595640.5060206@oracle.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <56595640.5060206@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Source-IP: aserv0021.oracle.com []
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/qAqJKTwMgbSNzgrx2vySj06rWSI>
Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-undeployed-03
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: <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: Sat, 09 Jan 2016 03:48:14 -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.

This draft designates a number of TCP related RFCs to Historic or Informational
status.  The corresponding RFCs have either been superseded, not widely adopted,
or no longer recommended.

The security considerations section does exist and states that this RFC
does not introduce any new considerations.  The section goes on to say that
any security aspects of the RFC are applicable to the RFCs in question.  I
agree with these assertions.

General comments:


Editorial comments:

s/which which describes/which describes/