[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-06

Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 22 May 2024 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DF2C1B162B; Wed, 22 May 2024 06:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.11.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <171638472698.52593.14654334416040821523@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 06:32:07 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: QGDW7H7M4ZPQXHOQNFYBP4QTBL4ZVALS
X-Message-ID-Hash: QGDW7H7M4ZPQXHOQNFYBP4QTBL4ZVALS
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-secdir.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: bmwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Reply-To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-bmwg-benchmarking-stateful-06
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdir>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:secdir-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:secdir-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:secdir-leave@ietf.org>

Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review result: Ready

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.

I believe this document is ready.

The security considerations section redirects readers to RFC 8219, which looks
appropriate for a BMWG document.