Re: [secdir] Early SecDir Reviews

"Susan Hares" <> Sun, 03 January 2016 00:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B781A8821 for <>; Sat, 2 Jan 2016 16:45:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -94.358
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-94.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BQVos1TNfqY9 for <>; Sat, 2 Jan 2016 16:45:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C39A01A8820 for <>; Sat, 2 Jan 2016 16:45:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=;
From: Susan Hares <>
To: 'Russ Housley' <>
References: <00e901d14435$0d92b950$28b82bf0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2016 19:45:00 -0500
Message-ID: <006801d145bf$fd4df5f0$f7e9e1d0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0069_01D14596.147AFB30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKUFkxonBTXeDmpyINqGwK33R98eAFpup72nVgFS8A=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <>
Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <>,
Subject: Re: [secdir] Early SecDir Reviews
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: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 00:45:06 -0000



Thank you for letting me know your comments have been addressed.  I will
review the section 2.4 and SEC-REQ-09 to address the overlap. 


Sue Hares 


From: Russ Housley [] 
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 4:33 PM
To: Susan Hares
Cc: 'Kathleen Moriarty'; 'Stephen Farrell';
Subject: Re: [secdir] Early SecDir Reviews




I believe that my comments have been addresses.


I still see a great deal of overlap between Section 2.4 and requirements





On Dec 31, 2015, at 8:37 PM, Susan Hares wrote:



Just checking to see that all the issues you raised in for
draft-hares-i2rs-auth-trans on the SEC-DIR list:


are answered in WG version of this draft:


I'm ready to send this to the IESG for publication, but in checking on the
SEC-DIR list,

I did not see an OK.


Thank you for all your help to improve this draft on I2RS protocol security.


Sue Hares