Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-15.txt

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Tue, 28 April 2015 02:21 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C93D1ACE1D for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 0qKJQgRqL2b8 for <secdir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (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 10C271ACE16 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:21:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbyr2 with SMTP id yr2so79647198igb.0 for <secdir@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1fje6Dd4oxSzIFXwA7Bgj80qCQDzaAmlNTgmtiiThrY=; b=GbWAqTdQv6vMYtLz8mxhZCDrWfEa2fKHZELNrolenVKYZMuXWqTf2CEyMFPRPHTbcJ GE0bf7Jjz6Mtmua+pD6ijEJYmywONFuHZxSAEeGVwtN3jU7Z4a8v66NuXEi6E7zk4TNh lZzH9rQnQyDyvE9dXCIvNopxsUSlB6k24Nu5Q77yjJi3XdtuEZAbF8MYAmyR1opVtKML GejVlrg/FYQfFUPgqgwzGdm2ScKgNFOGt16FtEboQgPTP1nRDqlXta2PGfmhC9UN7tnU MUYWjxJxsLuGrmPmzwPjpvegn+KtQZ4tyNXomTmyGW+3iB08aw1akCkNhW4zDrLPErKT vgMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn0myXmLmpwy0T6TWvar3KEW79urA8LuTWLAnkOdaNGLgZgqtt/0V/SOLzZadqwJ4yfhA6Z
X-Received: by 10.42.187.65 with SMTP id cv1mr3387570icb.87.1430187687458; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:21:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m9sm6396277igv.4.2015.04.27.19.21.26 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:21:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <553EEEA6.5040605@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:21:26 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
References: <sjma8xx5iuo.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
In-Reply-To: <sjma8xx5iuo.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/woeHV6xwOjKvQwlSYAjpnhsTycw>
Cc: precis-chairs@tools.ietf.org, peter@andyet.com
Subject: Re: [secdir] sec-dir review of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-15.txt
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 28 Apr 2015 02:21:29 -0000

Hi Derek, thanks for the review!

On 4/24/15 3:14 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
> [re-posting with the correct subject to avoid future confusion..  sorry]
>
> Hi,
>
> 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 with the intent of improving
> security requirements and considerations in IETF drafts.  Comments
> not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the
> IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
> comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> Summary:
>
> Ready to publish
>
> Details:
>
> I'm not a SASLprep guru, so I haven't verified all the examples or
> comparisons, but security wise I see no issues with this document.
>
> I have no other comments on this document.
>
> -derek
>