Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <> Wed, 20 January 2016 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8FC1A90FA; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:44:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fGqiokCDFZ6q; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB1421A90CA; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x67so16282705ykd.2; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:44:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=thYvRdDEGKmaEx4yt+EWXnQ4abBjxVY/iYPCPK8aTPg=; b=YvdKdCGw3mVrEyhyhRNQFU07VaR53e7aE4PKmmDpBWRmlhugAhkf06mbMJEfuyDr8I 9EJbbQ+YUu9Cg7NA4tV30fnnv6pND6yrmldP5y4OYZpavwAyleTUgbCRgo+1E6PlxoS8 apSMcK/DCQLr1dySU9Yf6mh/cZjCqyI9GHlBmTGiK3V4kVpslEkyXxUZSmq1eczc1T8H 5r4E2Z5pxZwUnkM3G3QJ3eqxP2nUKc4hZx8f+V2sdxxf5yCM7Hfvy8DPd6F9WMxpHpa8 H2wb402ESUo21uotFgUsQrpSLqyI9xSk8KqQ/nwalZ5sfqzR4S0wKVDJ0MSWSsA/8KvO iTAw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=thYvRdDEGKmaEx4yt+EWXnQ4abBjxVY/iYPCPK8aTPg=; b=No8gIyoCKvuKc5ma/He6Wj8cZSAuUkidAIngaxi2k6hf8dMKtMhcLR7jhCz/Pra6HI NzYJ60SNASu7nHgc7woJwaJzJLvt3swhB5qy/ymTH8D5yWpSAO6IwjX8c+mHb+J7rQrd UCnRp8mT3QrY/N62b+ySJidHOddLYukzDA9oYxyvipj8NdIev9vTtKsGTaHGBwEvzJ/s LDV26PmzMgvWRRa2hr4HLAOkPBHZIuo9hTZKKkdlMc0hnHdfuqhtp5QVQw/48PbIDHCc yAGrNqxWGAz9yq1eTOvrYF9fHVBbtfJpMpGB2U5BhNqJhM2bTSPVPfObbf8tFaQO0B1U RrnA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmoj6kuUXkcsK6HIJeTdFLJ+vNyi6uovvGDZhjt3pT2vDZFQpyWnqedXoieqFOqvXIWxjkQV9jwP/OItkRc/FwhDa3H/A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id u7mr21120704ywd.100.1453308240054; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:44:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jan 2016 08:44:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:44:00 -0600
Message-ID: <>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <>
To: Carl Wallace <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114e7e7865ed930529c6b1de
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>,, "" <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-ippm-active-passive-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:44:02 -0000

Hi, Carl,

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Carl Wallace <>;

> 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 aims to provide clear definitions for Active and Passive
> performance assessment as well as defining Hybrid methods and establishing
> means of evaluating new methods as they emerge. The document relies
> heavily on textual references to other specifications, which can at times
> be a bit tedious for the reader but I have no particular suggestions
> regarding this point and it's probably fine for a document that is aiming
> to corral various earlier concepts. The referenced security and privacy
> considerations were very good (if nearly as long as this spec itself). One
> minor point, section 4.2 might be better placed before the current section
> 4.1 to better set-up the ASCII art in section 4.1.

Thanks for the review!

Could the authors let me know if the 4.1/4.2 section switch should happen?
No need to submit a revision about that until after the telechat tomorrow,
if the answer is "yes".