Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-17
review-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-17-secdir-telechat-lonvick-2013-02-07-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-02-05
Requested 2013-01-31
Authors James Polk
I-D last updated 2013-02-07
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -?? by Alexey Melnikov
Genart Telechat review of -17 by Alexey Melnikov (diff)
Secdir Early review of -?? by Chris M. Lonvick
Secdir Telechat review of -17 by Chris M. Lonvick (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Chris M. Lonvick
State Completed
Request Telechat review on draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 19)
Result Has nits
Completed 2013-02-07
review-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-17-secdir-telechat-lonvick-2013-02-07-00
Hi,

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 is actually a re-review of this document.  It appears that James 


addressed most of my editorial comments from that review and I'm happy 


with the results.






James has separated out the components of the option described in -15 (the 


one I had previously reviewed) into two options in this document.






Overall, I see where he's going with this and again I have no overall 


problems.  Some editorial things:






- I would like to see some discussion of the potential misuse of the 


Valid-For option in the Security Considerations section.  This could be a 


simple pointer to section 2.5 but I do feel that should be explicitly 


called out in the Security Considerations.






- I would like to see some discussion of the expected bounds of the 


Valid-For option value.  There is no guidance on what could or should be 


provided by the client, nor on what should be expected by the server. 


This just makes me a bit nervous.  :-)






- I couldn't find any reason why the components needed to be separated 


into two different options.  I'm sure that there is a good reason for it 


so having an explanation would help.  If it's in there, then I just missed 


it.




Best regards,
Chris