Last Call Review of draft-pal-eidr-urn-2016-01
review-pal-eidr-urn-2016-01-secdir-lc-yu-2016-07-06-00
Request | Review of | draft-pal-eidr-urn-2016 |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2016-07-01 | |
Requested | 2016-06-09 | |
Authors | Pierre-Anthony Lemieux | |
I-D last updated | 2016-07-06 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -01
by Vijay K. Gurbani
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -01 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -01 by Taylor Yu (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -01 by Mehmet Ersue (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Taylor Yu |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-pal-eidr-urn-2016 by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 01 (document currently at 03) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2016-07-06 |
review-pal-eidr-urn-2016-01-secdir-lc-yu-2016-07-06-00
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. Summary: ready The security considerations section of this document seems reasonable. The following sentence seems unnecessarily specific, but it was also present in RFC 7302 and doesn't seem harmful to retain. "Note, however, that failure to conform to the syntactic and lexical equivalence rules in this specification when using an EIDR Identifier as a criteria for accessing restricted resources can result in granting unauthorized access to these resources." It appears to me that it would require a confluence of multiple serious implementation and/or configuration flaws for the above concerns to be relevant, e.g., a default-allow policy combined with differing lookup procedures for authorization versus content retrieval.