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 24) | |
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 | |
I-D 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 Snapshot | |
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 24) | |
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') )