Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination-08
review-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination-08-secdir-lc-roca-2025-06-12-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 11)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2025-06-13
Requested 2025-04-08
Requested by Deb Cooley
Authors Matt Peterson , Danny Zollner , Anjali Sehgal
I-D last updated 2025-10-09 (Latest revision 2025-07-16)
Completed reviews Genart IETF Last Call review of -02 by Roni Even (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -02 by Barry Leiba (diff)
Httpdir Early review of -00 by Julian Reschke (diff)
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Bo Wu (diff)
Httpdir IETF Last Call review of -07 by Julian Reschke (diff)
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -08 by Vincent Roca (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Vincent Roca
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/NmPbfJ3Paiuojb2mlTF8xKBA-YQ
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 11)
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-06-12
review-ietf-scim-cursor-pagination-08-secdir-lc-roca-2025-06-12-00
Hello,

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.

Summary: Has Nits

The security considerations section looks great.
I just have a couple of remarks, easy to fix, on the form, not the content:

- the CIA classification is often fine, but not always.
Here, the discussion of section 5.3 "Integrity" is more related to access
control than integrity. I'm not convinced by the sentence: "However, the focus
is [...] than the integrity of the service provider" that tries to justify why
it could fit in a section on Integrity.

- the last item of section 5.4, namely "* Actors may face challenges...", is
totally disconnected from DoS prevention or mitigation. It could be moved out
of the itemize list and discussed as an independant paragraph.

Regards,    Vincent