[Smart] draft-mcfadden-smart-rfc3552-research-methodology
<mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com> Thu, 27 June 2019 14:58 UTC
Return-Path: <mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com>
X-Original-To: smart@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: smart@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04F2120125 for <smart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=internetpolicyadvisors.com
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 r4sn67hSfNAy for <smart@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bisque.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (bisque.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.18]) (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 56E2712011F for <smart@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A0F5E1FF8 for <smart@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:58:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-88-48.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.88.48]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9B6815E089B for <smart@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.17.2); Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:58:21 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Lonely-Tasty: 21651e900980917c_1561647498228_2076780365
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1561647498228:1240282103
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1561647498227
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FCDA830DE for <smart@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d= internetpolicyadvisors.com; h=reply-to:from:to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type; s= internetpolicyadvisors.com; bh=4gRBZgbeTN7cy+45uLy35Z+Be+U=; b=r stHznK+KyokHjgiWtbPkTrUFWpntxgjoi26fK6We27CusgZW0RRfJYT7oCtfK/SF M0rmqLgaYR77ZBrT4m0/tfdeTrUSbHeWXAoGZpJGtVSPraO5FscaoUWGiSHawkjF yRN+S+RvEIgq420sJELeh6hM6FZ6f6+GmqE5dfg3Tk=
Received: from Kahlo (76-235-103-220.lightspeed.mdsnwi.sbcglobal.net [76.235.103.220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a68.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9371F830E0 for <smart@irtf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 07:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a68
From: mark@internetpolicyadvisors.com
To: smart@irtf.org
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:58:08 -0500
Organization: internet policy advisors
Message-ID: <009d01d52cf8$bc6b2e30$35418a90$@internetpolicyadvisors.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009E_01D52CCE.D39ACB80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AdUs99pAJP3lK05QRGG0YB7EtpT10g==
Content-Language: en-us
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: 0
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudekgdekgecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheprhfhvffuffhokfggtgfothesrhdtghepvddtvdenucfhrhhomhepoehmrghrkhesihhnthgvrhhnvghtphholhhitgihrgguvhhishhorhhsrdgtohhmqeenucfkphepjeeirddvfeehrddutdefrddvvddtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopefmrghhlhhopdhinhgvthepjeeirddvfeehrddutdefrddvvddtpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpeeomhgrrhhksehinhhtvghrnhgvthhpohhlihgthigrughvihhsohhrshdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhgrrhhksehinhhtvghrnhgvthhpohhlihgthigrughvihhsohhrshdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepshhmrghrthesihhrthhfrdhorhhgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/smart/fxgVYUzyLmceAradiCUV3P_Xecg>
Subject: [Smart] draft-mcfadden-smart-rfc3552-research-methodology
X-BeenThere: smart@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Stopping Malware And Researching Threats <smart.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/smart>, <mailto:smart-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/smart/>
List-Post: <mailto:smart@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:smart-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/smart>, <mailto:smart-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 14:58:28 -0000
All: I've posted an I-D that proposes a piece of research to be done in support of a possible revision to RFC 3552. The general idea is to do an examination of Security Considerations sections from published RFCs. Doing that examination might help guide the revision of the fifteen-year-old guidance on writing a Security Considerations section by providing both quantitative and qualitative information about existing considerations sections. That research might (or, might not) be published in its own right and then used as input to drafting a RFC3552bis. I propose the methodology as a place to start - rather than dive right in and tackle the revision of RFC3552 immediately it seems prudent to learn from what we can of recent published RFCs. I'm not only proposing the methodology for comment and discussion, but I'm also interested in helping conduct the research once there is an agreed methodology. Comments and suggestions welcome as are suggestions of where else to try to gain input, mark Mark McFadden Principal Consultantsea mark@internetpolicyadvisors.co.uk <mailto:mark@internetpolicyadvisors.co.uk>