Last Call Review of draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-22
review-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-22-secdir-lc-yu-2018-01-11-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language |
|---|---|---|
| Requested rev. | no specific revision (document currently at 24) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Security Area Directorate (secdir) | |
| Deadline | 2017-02-20 | |
| Requested | 2017-02-06 | |
| Draft last updated | 2018-01-11 | |
| Completed reviews |
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Mahesh Jethanandani
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -22 by Taylor Yu (diff) Genart Last Call review of -06 by Dale Worley (diff) Genart Last Call review of -19 by Dale Worley (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Taylor Yu |
| State | Completed | |
| Review | review-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-22-secdir-lc-yu-2018-01-11 | |
| Reviewed rev. | 22 (document currently at 24) | |
| Review result | Has Issues | |
| Review completed: | 2018-01-11 |
Review
review-ietf-slim-negotiating-human-language-22-secdir-lc-yu-2018-01-11
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 with minor issues The security considerations section seems mostly reasonable. The emergency services use case vaguely bothered me in ways I couldn't quite articulate at first, but I think Alissa Cooper's ballot comment about denying emergency services by manipulating these attributes captures most of the essence. I would add for that these new language tags, integrity seems to be a stronger requirement than confidentiality, at least in the emergency calling use case. Best regards, -Taylor