Last Call Review of draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00
review-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00-secdir-lc-montville-2016-05-05-00
| Request | Review of | draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2016-05-13 | |
| Requested | 2016-04-21 | |
| Authors | Yaron Sheffer , Adrian Farrel | |
| I-D last updated | 2016-05-05 | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -00
by Adam W. Montville
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -?? by Éric Vyncke |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Adam W. Montville |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-sheffer-rfc6982bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 00 (document currently at 03) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2016-05-05 |
review-sheffer-rfc6982bis-00-secdir-lc-montville-2016-05-05-00
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. This draft is ready. I found the draft readable and easy to understand. I agree with the statement made in the Security Considerations section that, being a process document, there are no real security considerations. I also agree with the perspective that a draft with an Implementation Status section probably has implementations, which, in turn, may mean that the protocol was more deeply examined and therefore more likely to be secured well. Kind regards, Adam Attachment: signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail