Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-wilde-service-link-rel-06

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 02:42:12 -0800

Reviewer: Stefan Santesson
Review result: Has Issues

Even though this document is quite repetitive when describing its fundamental
concepts, I still had a problem figuring out whether the link relations defined
are applicable to any web resource, or just to "web services" in the context of
"service provided to another service".

I have no issues with the fundamental concept, but the document lacks security
considerations. The content of the section is "..." indicating that something
eventually is intended to go here, but has not yet been written. If there are
absolutely no security considerations, then the section should say so.

I do however think that there are some useful security considerations to
document. At least it may be useful to have a small discussion to consider what
information about a service that is helpful to a user, and which could be used
by an attacker, and find a good balance.

As a nit I would suggest shortening some of the fundamental description in the
early introduction that is being repeated in the document. The document is
rather short and therefore does not benefit from saying the same things many
times.

---

From: Erik Wilde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:06:05 +0100

hello.

thanks, stefan, for the review!

> "service provided to another service".

in theory they apply to any web resource, but in practice descriptions 
and documentation in most cases will only be published for sets of 
resources, which this draft calls "web services". i myself am not a huge 
fan of this terminology, but it seems to be what most people are using.

> by an attacker, and find a good balance.

thanks for this suggestion. i have added this at 
https://github.com/dret/I-D/commit/3f065e662ccd66419c92246a2bba9bd8c5127ade, 
which adds security considerations.

> rather short and therefore does not benefit from saying the same things many

i agree that there are repetitions. they are intentional, as the goal 
has been to make the individual sections as self-contained as possible, 
so that users looking for the definitions of the individual link 
relations can look them up and just read the individual definitions.

i think with these changes in the draft i have addressed the comments in 
this review. i have posted a new version of the draft that includes the 
changes mentioned here.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-service-link-rel-07

thanks again and kind regards,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[email-masked] |
            | http://dret.net/netdret    |
            | http://twitter.com/dret    |