[calsify] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks-13
Joseph Salowey via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 23 March 2025 08:03 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: calsify@ietf.org
Delivered-To: calsify@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from [10.244.8.216] (unknown [104.131.183.230]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1FC1123091; Sun, 23 Mar 2025 01:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Joseph Salowey via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 12.37.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <174271703472.1463669.11326002752515576610@dt-datatracker-5b9b68c5b6-zxk6z>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 01:03:54 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: WDKBSI55XUPBNXDB5MI26PIYWCLPAXDG
X-Message-ID-Hash: WDKBSI55XUPBNXDB5MI26PIYWCLPAXDG
X-MailFrom: noreply@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-calsify.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: calsify@ietf.org, draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Reply-To: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Subject: [calsify] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-calext-ical-tasks-13
List-Id: Calendaring and Scheduling Standards Simplification <calsify.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/calsify/hjx4ydWPLs5qbgGAXCLbxqSM2G0>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/calsify>
List-Help: <mailto:calsify-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:calsify-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:calsify@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:calsify-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:calsify-leave@ietf.org>
Reviewer: Joseph Salowey Review result: Has Issues I have reviewed this document as part of security directorate review. I think the document has one issue that should be addressed. Shouldn't this document also reference RFC9253 in the security consideration since ti is dealing with Links?
- [calsify] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-c… Joseph Salowey via Datatracker