[secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01

Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu> Wed, 31 August 2016 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <tlyu@mit.edu>
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 CEAD312D7C1; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.769
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.769 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 D54tekHxz4_N; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu [18.9.25.14]) (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 6646312D77D; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 1209190e-ef3ff70000000272-74-57c760cbe582
Received: from mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu ( [18.7.62.39]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id A8.55.00626.BC067C75; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:57:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-4.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id u7VMvFcA023672; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:57:15 -0400
Received: from localhost (sarnath.mit.edu [18.18.1.190]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tlyu@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id u7VMvDq0032414; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:57:14 -0400
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@mit.edu>
To: <iesg@ietf.org>, <secdir@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-01.all@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:57:13 -0400
Message-ID: <ldv4m60r1h2.fsf@sarnath.mit.edu>
Lines: 11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrFIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6nrns24Xi4waLjPBb7vu9kt5jxZyKz xYeFD1kcmD2WLPnJFMAYxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJVx6kBAwSyWilmrexkbGLczdzFyckgImEgc ftYFZgsJtDFJfH6s2cXIBWRvZJTY93QWG4TzhlHi9PeL7CBVbALSEscv72ICsUUEUiVe/v3F BmILC3hITF65HGwSi4CqxIJXH8HqeQV0JRZOnw4U5+DgEeCUODGlEiIsKHFy5hMWEJtZQEvi xr+XTBMYeWYhSc1CklrAyLSKUTYlt0o3NzEzpzg1Wbc4OTEvL7VI11gvN7NELzWldBMjKFg4 Jfl2ME5q8D7EKMDBqMTD6/DmWLgQa2JZcWXuIUZJDiYlUV61uOPhQnxJ+SmVGYnFGfFFpTmp xYcYJTiYlUR4X8QD5XhTEiurUovyYVLSHCxK4rxdMw6ECwmkJ5akZqemFqQWwWRlODiUJHj/ gDQKFqWmp1akZeaUIKSZODhBhvMADf8GNry4IDG3ODMdIn+KUZdjwY/ba5mEWPLy81KlxHmT QIoEQIoySvPg5oCjXIhx3ytGcaC3hHl9gDEvxANMEHCTXgEtYQJaUnDnMMiSkkSElFQDY3Xn Yy4F4yUrFbwvFjhO/xlg9qv6dJBO/O8Tb/u3ur6c2H26317jhUvgjieL8msfTiteuMRtnxx/ 4o3Xpt9FNW3jLv+aqaN6Z56u+rLV6XduW+d6q61/Fnup5Q1nhe/1vXeZl6pcFW3786R9Ycln 1h8m06QzBRvOVstwn8p16SrLdS//kvokWomlOCPRUIu5qDgRAOf1rYrNAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/vt8oK5IHAIZRx0rI4TYMJl6j0Uc>
Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-mibs-obsolete-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: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:57:20 -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: ready

The security considerations section of this document seems reasonable.
Republishing obsolete MIBs that are explicitly marked as obsolete in
their bodies sounds like a good idea.