Last Call Review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-
review-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-secdir-lc-nystrom-2011-08-01-00

Request Review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2011-07-13
Requested 2011-06-17
Authors James Polk
Draft last updated 2011-08-01
Completed reviews Genart Telechat review of -02 by David Black (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -?? by Magnus Nystrom
Assignment Reviewer Magnus Nystrom 
State Completed
Review review-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-secdir-lc-nystrom-2011-08-01
Review completed: 2011-08-01

Review
review-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-secdir-lc-nystrom-2011-08-01

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 establishes a new SIP priority header field for use in
local emergency situations.

As such, this could constitute an important addition to the SIP
resource priority header fields and I assume the document has been
appropriately reviewed by the SIP community. The one consideration I
had seems already to be reasonably discussed and covered in the
document - the possibility of misuse and, through this, disruption of
service.

One comment/question though: Section 2 states: "The 'esnet' namespace
SHOULD only be used in times of an emergency, where at least one end
of the signaling is within a local emergency organization" - why is
this a "SHOULD" and not a "MUST"? After all, the acronym "esnet"
stands for "Emergency Service NETwork". (Also, on the latter part of
that sentence - is it really "within" a local emergency organization -
should it not be that the initiator is a local emergency org?)

-- Magnus