Last Call Review of draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01
review-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01-secdir-lc-salowey-2022-09-29-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 01) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2022-10-10 | |
Requested | 2022-09-26 | |
Authors | Robert Sparks | |
I-D last updated | 2022-09-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -01
by Tianran Zhou
Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Joseph A. Salowey Artart Last Call review of -01 by Todd Herr |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Joseph A. Salowey |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdir/yHdj8BuFxlqT96BFm3ANeL70_IA | |
Reviewed revision | 01 | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2022-09-29 |
review-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01-secdir-lc-salowey-2022-09-29-00
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. The summary of the review is Ready I have one question. The document takes a field that previously held one reason and allows to hold multiple reasons. Since this behavior is only allowed for protocols that define multiple reasons, it seems the exposure to existing implementations would be small, however it's possible that this behavior will leak into some existing cases. Do we have any implementation experience as to what existing implementations will do if the receive multiple reasons that they do not expect? Thanks, Joe