Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-17
review-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-17-secdir-lc-kelly-2022-02-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2022-02-09
Requested 2022-01-26
Authors Brian Rosen , Roger Marshall , Jeff Martin
I-D last updated 2022-02-12
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -17 by Russ Housley (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Scott G. Kelly (diff)
Artart Last Call review of -17 by Claudio Allocchio (diff)
Intdir Telechat review of -18 by Tatuya Jinmei (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Scott G. Kelly
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-ecrit-similar-location by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/zVAIGKTXC7TwHkfvagSfTcLpHeM
Reviewed revision 17 (document currently at 19)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-02-12
review-ietf-ecrit-similar-location-17-secdir-lc-kelly-2022-02-12-00
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.

The summary of the review is ready.

From the abstract, this document introduces a new way to provide returned
location information in LoST responses that is either of a completed or similar
form to the original input civic location, based on whether valid or invalid
civic address elements are returned within the  <findServiceResponse> message.

The security considerations section considers that this mechanism may disclose
information, and that implementers should consider the implications of this in
the context of their service.  If I were writing this section, I might start by
saying (because this doc extends RFC 5222) that all of the security
considerations of 5222 apply, but this is implicit, and I don't feel strongly
about this.

From a security considerations perspective, I think this document is ready.