Subject: [secdir] Review of draft-gellens-lost-validation-05

From: Shawn Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 19:41:27 -0700

Reviewer: Shawn M. Emery
Review result: Ready

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 draft specifies an IANA registry for the Location-to-Service
Translation
(LoST) Protocol Validation Service Tag under U-NAPTR.

The security considerations section does exist and refers to RFC 3958 and
4848.
I agree that this change does not introduce any new security considerations.

General comments:

None.

Editorial comments:

Abbreviations should be expanded in the title of the draft and when first
used (in this case the Abstract).
s/...//

Shawn.
--

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2020 16:38:54 -0700

> used (in this case the Abstract).

Thanks for your review, Shawn.  Just to clarify, your suggestion is that 
"S-NAPTR" be expanded in the Abstract, e.g., by adding "(Straightforward 
Name Authority PoinTeR)".

--Randall

---

From: Shawn Emery <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2020 21:18:58 -0600

Yes, it's not listed as a well-known abbreviation in the RFC-editor's
list.  Could you also send me an update of the draft stemming from the
Gen-ART comments?

Thanks,

Shawn.
--

---

From: "Randall Gellens" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 08:19:50 -0700

Hi Ben,

I added the expansion as noted in my original reply.  By the gen-art 
comments you mean Pete's?  I sent a separate email to everyone who has 
reviewed the draft asking if everyone is OK with Pete's last suggestion, 
which is to delete Sections 3 and 4 and add a reference to NENA i3 as a 
work in progress that will use the new tag.

--Randall

On 8 Mar 2020, at 20:18, Shawn Emery wrote:

>>> The security considerations section does exist and refers to RFC 
>>> 3958
>>> and
>>> 4848.