Let me add my thanks for your review Kathleen! @Brian and team, there is a "standard" security section in wg chair's slides and other drafts. Please feel free to improve and customize the text for this case of next-gen firewall benchmarking (in isolated test environments, consistent with our charter). regards, Al bmwg co-chair > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Monkman [mailto:bmonkman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, July 8, 2019 4:40 PM > To: 'Kathleen Moriarty' <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx>; > secdir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > bmwg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Secdir early review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-00 > > Thanks for your feedback Kathleen. I will review it with the team and may > get back to you with questions. > > Brian Monkman > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathleen Moriarty via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: July 8, 2019 4:38 PM > To: secdir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; > bmwg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Secdir early review of draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance-00 > > Reviewer: Kathleen Moriarty > Review result: Has Nits > > Thank you for your work on draft-ietf-bmwg-ngfw-performance. This is a > straightforward review establishing metrics for comparison of SUT/DUT for > firewalls establishing measurement requirements as well as acceptance > criteria. > When crypto is recommended for use in testing, it's current, although it > should be noted that this is just for test environments. In terms of > security, I think this document is ready with nits. > > Please add a security considerations section. Feel free to include > something like what's above. > > Section 4.1: Nit > > Spell out Device under test/system under test on first use. I don't think > it comes up that often in the IESG review cycle. I had to look it up and > my memory was jogged. > > Sorry for my late 'early' review! > >
