[secdir] SecDir Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10

Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com> Fri, 19 August 2016 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mamille2@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E697C12D0B7; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:02:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.768
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id POJuzD2Chas2; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B510012D5A9; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2581; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471626169; x=1472835769; h=to:from:subject:message-id:date:mime-version; bh=fXmjz9vF5jFURBPdP6MR1ViLeckP8aAbKnV4dKptl14=; b=frUQQIyYA27lguZ36k7SvzFTeTCJ19ZdiBboYUe4tugv8KuiL6MFtf79 22PUFHrQN3m1qOcJVXC7qSkBBcMWem8wdVgdxdWSB0JDoi6fczSK4522/ CPQSCFPc/B4vglC5IvLVcqIwKyCLlXpy9OEcy0ojAhogg0K1XmM9i0RvR U=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 496
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,545,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="137763249"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Aug 2016 17:02:48 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7JH2mkV028221; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:02:48 GMT
To: secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes.all@ietf.org
From: Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <e650aaa6-bb81-ef0a-fd74-5416014e1088@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:02:47 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="R8aHV86Swipb4o4R54l9GIlAR7j8bu4f5"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/xW0hVzGM-UYLXlN9f9FjE-rP00c>
Subject: [secdir] SecDir Review of draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10
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: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:02:55 -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 that arrived on time.

Document: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-10
Reviewer: Matthew A. Miller
Review Date: 2016-08-19
IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-06
IESG Telechat date: N/A


This document is ready for publication as a Standards Track document.

This document updates RFC 5764 to update the receiver's demultiplexing
to account for all the known packet types, and explicitly updates the
IANA registries that were previously implicitly impacted, including
changes in allocations of the registries to require coordination.

Major issues:


Minor issues:


Nits/editorial comments:

* This document uses "RFC XXXX" or "RFCXXXX" to, I assume, reference
this document.  It may be worth calling this out explicitly for the
RFC Editor, although I don't think this requires an update to this

- m&m

Matt Miller
Cisco Systems, Inc.