IETF Logo Mail Archive

[secdir] Secdir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 08 March 2016 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.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 D70AE12D593; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:03:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSqSyygByDF5; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:03:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 8464D12D552; Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-57-158-165.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.158.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u28L3MLq048436 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:03:23 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-173-57-158-165.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.158.165] claimed to be unnumerable.local
To: "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry.all@ietf.org
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <56DF3E1A.4010003@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:03:22 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------010209000909050403040305"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/r5wA7tyoQ0gCD9WZs3BSH53e-GU>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03
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, 08 Mar 2016 21:03:28 -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.	

Summary: Almost ready for publication as PS with process nit

This very short draft only changes the registration policy for an existing (sub)registry at IANA - adding "Specification Required" to the current "Standards Action" policy.
It introduces no new security considerations.

It has no security considerations section - the shepherd writeup asserts none is needed.
As far as I recall, that's not true. A short section explicitly saying there are no new considerations is required.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email