Last Call Review of draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05
review-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05-secdir-lc-montville-2017-01-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 16)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2017-01-30
Requested 2017-01-16
Other Reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -08 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -15 by Ron Bonica (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -15 by Adam Montville (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -15 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Adam Montville
Review review-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05-secdir-lc-montville-2017-01-26
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/F9v3ulqhfSQChH1oUwRpZRJ21TY
Reviewed rev. 05 (document currently at 16)
Review result Has Nits
Draft last updated 2017-01-26
Review completed: 2017-01-26

Review
review-ietf-lamps-eai-addresses-05-secdir-lc-montville-2017-01-26

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 is ready with nits.

In Security Considerations, I recommend: s/but further/but is further/.
Then, I would change the second to last sentence in Security Considerations
as follows:

This complication, as mentioned in Section 4.4 of [RFC5890] and in Section
4 of [RFC6532], is that use of Unicode introduces the risk of visually
similar characters which can be exploited to deceive the recipient.

Kind regards,

Adam