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 revision | 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 | |
I-D last updated | 2016-03-10 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by Vijay K. 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 | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
Result | Has nits | |
Completed | 2016-03-10 |
review-ietf-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-03-secdir-lc-sparks-2016-03-10-00
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.