Skip to main content

Telechat Review of draft-ietf-sacm-coswid-20
review-ietf-sacm-coswid-20-secdir-telechat-sparks-2022-02-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-sacm-coswid
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 22)
Type Telechat Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2022-02-15
Requested 2022-01-26
Authors Henk Birkholz , Jessica Fitzgerald-McKay , Charles Schmidt , David Waltermire
Draft last updated 2022-02-01
Completed reviews Artart Last Call review of -18 by Rich Salz (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -18 by Scott O. Bradner (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -18 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -20 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-sacm-coswid-20-secdir-telechat-sparks-2022-02-01
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/MRZJMP91_hLkTHA2Wbdk--gmKiI
Reviewed revision 20 (document currently at 22)
Result Ready
Completed 2022-02-01
review-ietf-sacm-coswid-20-secdir-telechat-sparks-2022-02-01-00
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 document is ready publication as a Proposed Standard RFC.

Thanks for addressing my last call comments.

I still think you are missing an opportunity to avoid real implementation and
registry trouble by not further constraining the characters that can appear in
a name that will be registered. NMTOKEN, especially as defined in the
references you point to here, has a big expansion set.

Do you really want someone to be able to register the name "'̀·_·-·_·́'"?
(fwiw, that's b'\xcc\x80\xc2\xb7_\xc2\xb7-\xc2\xb7_\xc2\xb7\xcc\x81')

)