Last Call Review of draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03
review-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03-secdir-lc-farrell-2019-11-29-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 09) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2019-12-02 | |
Requested | 2019-11-18 | |
Authors | Tim Wicinski | |
I-D last updated | 2019-11-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -03
by Meral Shirazipour
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -03 by Stephen Farrell (diff) Tsvart Last Call review of -03 by Brian Trammell (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -04 by Jean-Michel Combes (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Stephen Farrell |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/pLslFU9NxI6sleHu9pOz2rdrvcE | |
Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 09) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2019-11-29 |
review-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03-secdir-lc-farrell-2019-11-29-00
I might not be the best reviewer for this one as I've read it a few times before. But anyway, I scanned the diff [1] with RFC7626 and figure it seems fine. The only thing that occurred to me that seemed missing was to note that while the new privacy analysis in 3.5.1.1 is already complex, many systems are mobile and hence an analysis that ignores that won't be sufficient. For a mobile device one really needs to analyse all of the possible setups, and hence it's even harder to get to a good answer. (It could be that that's elsewhere in the document but since I only read the diff, I didn't see it:-) Cheers, S. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc7626&url2=draft-ietf-dprive-rfc7626-bis-03.txt