Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-leiba-3967upd-downref-01

From: Tom Yu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:10:57 -0500

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 with nits

The Security Considerations changes added in -01 seem good.

Comment: Could the responsible AD annotate each "safe" normative downref
(doesn't require community review), along with the rationale? (e.g.,
foundational or architecture document having Informational status) Or is
that putting too much burden on the AD?  I know this is a substantive
comment late in the process, so feel free to disregard.

-Tom

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:34:16 -0500

Hi, Tom, and thanks for the review.

> The Security Considerations changes added in -01 seem good.

Great; thanks for the check.

> comment late in the process, so feel free to disregard.

I'm happy to put text in for that, if the IESG thinks it's a good
idea.  I'll let them discuss it and Ben can let me know.

Barry

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:41:38 -0600

Thanks for the review and response. Please see below:

> idea.  I'll let them discuss it and Ben can let me know.

My kneejerk response is that the relaxation of process in this draft is 
not about saying a downref is "safe" in general, just that the specific 
circumstances do not justify repeating the LC. I would expect the 
responsible AD to mention that (and the reasoning) to the IESG and give 
them a chance to object, If that's not clear for the draft we should add 
some words about it.

OTOH, if we are talking about whether the downref might be safe for 
subsequent drafts, we have the downref registry for that purpose. I 
think the registry solves different problem and somewhat orthogonal 
problem.

Thanks!

Ben.