[secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-02
Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 07 March 2016 17:57 UTC
Return-Path: <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A411CD746; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:57:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfc.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.41]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a698wUaP2WLn; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vk0-x236.google.com (mail-vk0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26E9E1CD738; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:57:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vk0-x236.google.com with SMTP id e185so126084551vkb.1; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 09:57:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=CM8ZpXgSDlFrp84NBrtElcOQ2BnW5Nb2UJo4aMv8rmI=; b=lJNLsUVG1qeTS/cjbcdOJ3zkNA4IzL8rpXNvhcaNA+4HC9sz8SRYopbDBWqxrbf0sH qQc4F47OT8Ei32fqrmn5ycC/Z0sEdJgFMRU99AkA6rcc2l0fxTIsX+AhINHFD4Bn3iLt e34tORNBmxfTA12GKqJjpmn6sIoIVVX5QAEBOUqBAzrS9+lcpD++hedSouHNvhjEVRC2 p3G6aiHKkQE0hRfFcwYJxBMcPwPUQ/Dyem42NvajKWIBemrwpAI8NAqziIQ8NYsT5+su oW64dnTjOJsA4v4k55mvSas0rXg276318vcHsRVtarRfZUhMHO4Pq0VgcXllIkJskVs2 +3RA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=CM8ZpXgSDlFrp84NBrtElcOQ2BnW5Nb2UJo4aMv8rmI=; b=mF2QY0Jvw34/T7RqIaxm4qTQUxgg/axM6NanzRgYrhPNqLy653zzNzE3Fd5waq2tBb kw+UDa+XOHTUtHVVWoUiB79T23O9qE/C6IT65XGX0IBpGpNNdlrwC/Ocnjq3V3S6Ofrg YccL3lkT06So97F0ZAjeZuWPcEYCfhBIzVLVW0rCN6lYQBk/naQLtrPVOUjce8Pm6LzL 0lZWWskYs4uxeEcCXOU8jATPYPIinKFJ48Pf2Dkaug+VMB3EK+5dnBuqruElQKufBs3x X9QyrRvlg8fqKDd/WmmFikIjFXFRblAzCSzfJs7/R+DUrArkava76kMHamPlwSIsIYX/ IIxw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJakMdh/aj+z2o97Q6izyXk3+g5phMs7mBPXJgHE+2csvoJj1AdeDWc0D0i5/EVVBhE+ZYMmc+NDB2xxg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.6.17 with SMTP id 17mr21811450vkg.75.1457373448179; Mon, 07 Mar 2016 09:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.159.38.38 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:57:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGL6epL0whLFDOA98Q69h4KEiVrxezNsD1G+6N2euqY8KAN7Cg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, secdir@ietf.org, draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie.all@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143f24aaf14fa052d793238"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/ef7Y4lS9Bv_ANFOdCpq2P3eKiQY>
Subject: [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-02
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: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 17:57:49 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2016 17:57:49 -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. Summary: *Ready* This is an *Informational* draft that describes some high-level requirements, and describes a variant of a scheme defined in a separate Standards Track document. As such, the Security Considerations section, that states that the document does not introduce any new security issues, seems appropriate to me. Regards, Rifaat
- [secdir] SecDir review of draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-p… Rifaat Shekh-Yusef