Last Call Review of draft-rosen-urn-nena-
review-rosen-urn-nena-secdir-lc-hanna-2010-03-15-00
Request | Review of | draft-rosen-urn-nena |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
Deadline | 2010-03-10 | |
Requested | 2010-02-05 | |
Authors | Brian Rosen | |
I-D last updated | 2015-10-14 (Latest revision 2010-10-12) | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -??
by Steve Hanna
|
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Steve Hanna |
State | Completed | |
Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-rosen-urn-nena by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
Completed | 2010-03-15 |
review-rosen-urn-nena-secdir-lc-hanna-2010-03-15-00
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 does not raise any particular security issues so the security considerations section of the document is adequate. Subsequent documents that define values and sub-registries within the nena namespace may need more detailed discussions of security considerations. I did notice one non-security issue. In the Declaration of syntactic structure in section 2, the structure the structure is given as {NENAclass}:ClassSpecificString}. I don't know why curly braces are being used here but I suppose they are intended to indicate that NENAclass and ClassSpecificString are variable strings. If so, there should be an opening curly brace before ClassSpecificString. Thanks, Steve