Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01
review-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01-secdir-lc-dunbar-2021-03-16-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 02)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2021-03-23
Requested 2021-03-02
Authors Randall Gellens
Draft last updated 2021-03-16
Completed reviews Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -01 by Suhas Nandakumar (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Linda Dunbar 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01-secdir-lc-dunbar-2021-03-16
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/1k6hyw00kSwGxTv_PTT0pSkeIwc
Reviewed rev. 01 (document currently at 02)
Review result Not Ready
Review completed: 2021-03-16

Review
review-ietf-ecrit-location-profile-registry-policy-01-secdir-lc-dunbar-2021-03-16

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 document doesn't seem to be complete. The document claims that it changes the policy of the Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Location Profile registry from Standards Action to Specification Required, but it doesn't specify what is the new procedure.  It says allowing other SDOs to change or add values. But which SDOs are allowed? Are there any procedures to identify which SDOs are legitimate? can any organizations, say XYZ, change, add or delete the values? 

Best Regards, 
Linda Dunbar