Subject: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-14 (resend)

From: "Patrick Cain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:31:23 -0500

[You may have seen this message before. Many recipients apparently have not.
:(  ]

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.

Document synopsis (snipped):

There is growing interest in being able to use location information
contained in a PIDF-LO for routing applications.  To allow successful
interoperability between applications, location information needs to be
normative and more tightly constrained than is currently specified in the
RFC 4119 (PIDF-LO).  This document makes recommendations on how to
constrain,
represent and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO.

-----

The document looks fine to me from a security standpoint. The security
considerations correctly points out that this is mostly a formatting
document and other places define and recommend proper usage and protection
of the data.

Pat Cain

_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir

---

From: "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:11:32 +0200

Thanks for your review Patrick!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of Patrick Cain
>Sent: 01 January, 2009 22:31
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
>[email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
>Subject: [secdir] Security review of 
>draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-14(resend)
>
>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.
>
>There is growing interest in being able to use location 
>information contained in a PIDF-LO for routing applications.  
>To allow successful interoperability between applications, 
>location information needs to be normative and more tightly 
>constrained than is currently specified in the RFC 4119 
>(PIDF-LO).  This document makes recommendations on how to 
>constrain, represent and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO.
>
>-----
>
>The document looks fine to me from a security standpoint. The 
>security considerations correctly points out that this is 
>mostly a formatting document and other places define and 
>recommend proper usage and protection of the data.
>
>Pat Cain
>