RE: Ballot: Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier Reference to Draft Standard (Revised)

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Steve, this is an RFC that is being advanced to DS, they are
not doing a new I-D. Do we want tthem to go through the
overhead of a new I-D (which then becomes a new RFC to
obsolete the current RFC2895) ??
If so... there will possibly quite afew more admin and
bureaucratic changes we want... because of our new NITs and
all that.

I'd prefer if we can just advance an existing RFC.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
> Sent: woensdag 11 juni 2003 23:14
> To: IESG Secretary
> Cc: Internet Engineering Steering Group
> Subject: Re: Ballot: Remote Network Monitoring MIB Protocol Identifier
> Reference to Draft Standard (Revised) 
> 
> 
> In message <200306051255.IAA22857@ietf.org>, IESG Secretary writes:
> >
> 
> >                    Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain
> >
> >Steve Bellovin      [   ]     [   ]       [ x ]      [   ]
> 
> Mmm -- I think I'd like the Security Considerations to say something 
> like this:
> 
> 	The security sensitivity of a macro is at least as great as
> 	the sensitivity of any of its components, and sometimes greater.
> 	For example, read access to port numbers alone is of mild
> 	interest; the same is true for read access to host addresses
> 	and TCP sequence numbers.  However, the set of all of that
> 	information for any one connection allows easy session
> 	hijacking.
> 
> 
> 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
> 		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of 
> "Firewalls" book)
> 
>