Last Call Review of draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04
review-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04-secdir-lc-kivinen-2015-12-03-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 04) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2015-12-04 | |
| Requested | 2015-11-26 | |
| Authors | Tim Bray | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-11-14 (Latest revision 2015-11-10) | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart IETF Last Call review of -04
by Joel M. Halpern
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Tero Kivinen Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -04 by Fred Baker |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Tero Kivinen |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2015-12-03 |
review-ietf-httpbis-legally-restricted-status-04-secdir-lc-kivinen-2015-12-03-00
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. This documents adds new status code 451 which says that document is unavailable for legal reasons. It correctly points out that some entities blocking access might not want to tell that they are blocking this, so clients cannot rely on this, and also points out that users might be able to bypass the restrictions using VPNs or TORs. Summary: Ready. I just wonder why did the example singled out "the People's Front of Judea", and did not include "the Judean People's Front", "the Judean Popular People's Front", "the Campaign for a Free Galilee", and "the Popular Front of Judea".... :-) -- kivinen at iki.fi