Last Call Review of draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06
review-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06-secdir-lc-weiler-2013-01-10-00
| Request | Review of | draft-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 07) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2013-01-08 | |
| Requested | 2012-11-29 | |
| Authors | Gonzalo Salgueiro , Joe Clarke , Peter Saint-Andre | |
| Draft last updated | 2013-01-10 | |
| Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -06
by
Vijay K. Gurbani
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Samuel Weiler (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Samuel Weiler |
| State | Completed | |
| Review |
review-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06-secdir-lc-weiler-2013-01-10
|
|
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 07) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2013-01-10 |
review-salgueiro-vcarddav-kind-device-06-secdir-lc-weiler-2013-01-10-00
Summary: no objections. There are very real security concerns, but the only surprise is that they're discussed only by reference. The draft refers to the general vCard spec (RFC6350). RFC6350 does an adequate job. One might argue that vCards more devices are more likely to be used in automated and perhaps unfamiliar ways, so the ricks are greater than with vCards for humans. But we let a similar doc (RFC6473) be published a year ago with this same sort of referral, so it's hard to make a case than anything needs to change here. Thanks to the editors for the very readable doc. -- Sam