Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03-secdir-lc-sparks-2016-03-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2016-03-14
Requested 2016-03-03
Authors Zafar Ali, Antonello Bonfanti, Matt Hartley, Fatai Zhang
Draft last updated 2016-03-10
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -03 by Vijay Gurbani (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -04 by Al Morton (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03-secdir-lc-sparks-2016-03-10
Reviewed rev. 03 (document currently at 05)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2016-03-10

Review
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03-secdir-lc-sparks-2016-03-10



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: Almost ready for publication as PS with process nit

This very short draft only changes the registration policy for an existing (sub)registry at IANA - adding "Specification Required" to the current "Standards Action" policy.
It introduces no new security considerations.

It has no security considerations section - the shepherd writeup asserts none is needed.
As far as I recall, that's not true. A short section explicitly saying there are no new considerations is required.