Subject: [secdir] Assignments

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:33:32 -0400 (EDT)

Review instructions and related resources are at:
         http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview

Carl Wallace is next in the rotation.

For telechat 2011-06-23

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Richard Barnes         T 2011-06-09 draft-ietf-dnsext-dnssec-registry-fixes-08
Alan DeKok             TR2011-06-22 draft-ohba-pana-relay-03
Tobias Gondrom         T 2011-06-03 draft-ietf-dime-ikev2-psk-diameter-08
Scott Kelly            T 2011-06-15 draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats-02
Tero Kivinen           T 2011-06-15 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile-03
Alexey Melnikov        T 2011-06-22 draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-12
Hilarie Orman          T 2011-06-21 draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-00
Vincent Roca           T -          draft-ietf-mboned-ssmping-08
Juergen Schoenwaelder  T 2011-05-18 draft-ietf-sidr-keyroll-07
Tina TSOU              T 2011-06-20 draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-04
Nico Williams          T 2011-05-26 draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-11

For telechat 2011-06-30

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Catherine Meadows      T 2011-06-30 draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02
Kathleen Moriarty      T 2011-06-30 draft-ietf-ftpext2-hosts-02

For telechat 2011-07-14

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Chris Lonvick          T 2011-07-14 draft-gellens-mime-bucket-bis-05
David McGrew           T 2011-07-08 draft-iesg-rfc1150bis-01
Eric Rescorla          T 2011-06-29 draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-12
Yaron Sheffer          T 2011-05-18 draft-ietf-sidr-repos-struct-08

Last calls and special requests:

Reviewer                 LC end     Draft
Shawn Emery              2011-06-06 draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-bis-01
Phillip Hallam-Baker     2011-06-14 draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-11
Jeffrey Hutzelman        2011-06-14 draft-ietf-soc-overload-design-06
Julien Laganier          2011-06-15 draft-ietf-ipfix-configuration-model-09
Matt Lepinski            2011-07-13 draft-burgin-ipsec-suiteb-profile-00
Catherine Meadows       R2011-04-13 draft-ietf-speechsc-mrcpv2-24
Russ Mundy               2011-06-30 draft-ietf-karp-design-guide-02
Sandy Murphy             2011-06-22 draft-ietf-payload-rfc3016bis-01
Magnus Nystrom           2011-07-13 draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
Radia Perlman            2011-07-13 draft-law-rfc4869bis-01
Tim Polk                 2011-05-11 draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-mib-09
Tim Polk                 2011-06-30 draft-ietf-codec-requirements-04
Joe Salowey              2011-05-30 draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap-09
Stefan Santesson         2011-06-27 draft-ietf-pim-mtid-08
Ondrej Sury              2011-06-30 draft-ietf-sidr-rescerts-provisioning-10
Tina TSOU                2011-04-23 draft-shin-augmented-pake-06
Carl Wallace             2011-05-30 draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-lsp-ping-16
Glen Zorn                2011-06-28 draft-li-pwe3-ms-pw-pon-03

---

From: Tina Tsou <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:43:00 -0700

Hi Sam et al,
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 document requests that RFC3056 and the companion document "An Anycast
Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers" RFC3068 are moved to historic status.
I have some minor nits below, but overall the document seems in fine shape.

3.  6to4 operational problems
"In any case this model has the same
   operational burden has manually configured tunnels and has seen no
   deployment in the public Internet."
Should be
"In any case this model has the same
   operational burden as manually configured tunnels and has seen no
   deployment in the public Internet."

As the author said, 
   There are no new security considerations pertaining to this document.
   General security issues with tunnels are listed in
   [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-security-concerns] and more specifically to
   6to4 in [RFC3964] and [I-D.ietf-v6ops-tunnel-loops].

By the way, it is proposed to use 6rd replacing 6to4. 6rd is a good
technology, but cannot involve to IPv6. There are experiments on IPoE based
6rd, a little on PPPoE based 6rd.

We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!

Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html