[Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-edwards-urn-smpte-01.txt
"Eric Gray (LO/EUS)" <eric.gray@ericsson.com> Mon, 04 June 2007 15:03 UTC
Return-path: <gen-art-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvE60-0004HF-U6; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:03:48 -0400
Received: from gen-art by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HvE5z-0004CX-2h for gen-art-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:03:47 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvE5y-0004CP-PK for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:03:46 -0400
Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HvE5x-0001gy-9l for gen-art@ietf.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:03:46 -0400
Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l54F66Kq007227; Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:06:08 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.21]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 4 Jun 2007 10:03:42 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:03:39 -0500
Message-ID: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCFFCF0B5@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7DB9A86987E5DA4A85ADB4331CDF7B6A012C4F7A@EXCL.hq.corp.pbs.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-edwards-urn-smpte-01.txt
Thread-Index: AceiCobsN5VbBtJcTQqLvu/FPrxdZwEDDShQACdpVnA=
References: <941D5DCD8C42014FAF70FB7424686DCFF5FD21@eusrcmw721.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7DB9A86987E5DA4A85ADB4331CDF7B6A012C4F7A@EXCL.hq.corp.pbs.org>
From: "Eric Gray (LO/EUS)" <eric.gray@ericsson.com>
To: Thomas Edwards <tedwards@pbs.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jun 2007 15:03:42.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A318450:01C7A6B9]
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 995b2e24d23b953c94bac5288c432399
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, Chris Newman <chris.newman@sun.com>
Subject: [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-edwards-urn-smpte-01.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: gen-art-bounces@ietf.org
Thomas, The grammatical concern is that "their work" is ambiguous and - by its location in the sentence - actually refers to work belonging to "all" rather than "these Committees". It's a very minor point, but the way the sentence is structured I was struck by the notion that maybe I should join given that I have a bona fide interest in my work. :-) As for the reference to "those (security concerns) normally associated with ...", the fact that you can show any number of other places where the same content-free text appears, does not change the fact that the text is still content free. For the record, I do NOT prefer that the text should be removed, but would like to see some content added in its place. Clearly, there has been reason on numerous occasions in the past to believe either a (reasonably) well known set of security concerns does exist, or that it is not known whether or not such security concerns exist and each (set of) author(s) in these other RFCs has elected to "punt" on the issue. If there are any known security issues, then they should be documented somewhere (probably NOT in this document). If there has ever been any sort of analysis that shows that there are no security issues, then that also should have been documented somewhere. And, if there is a reasonable basis for arguing that this type of document or activity is unlikely to introduce ANY sort of security issue, than at least that statement should be made here. Anything else is simply punting on security issues. Again, for the record, it was for very similar reasons that the majority of RFCs used to say: "Security issues are not discussed in this memo." I can provide large numbers of references to RFCs that say this, yet I believe there is a fairly common agreement at this point that this is not okay any more. All of that said, however, if there is not a general agreement among the others that review these documents for Gen-ART, and the AD (Chris Newman) is okay with what the current wording, then let it stay as is... Thanks! -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Edwards [mailto:tedwards@pbs.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 3:57 PM > To: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) > Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; Chris Newman > Subject: RE: Gen-ART Last Call Review of > draft-edwards-urn-smpte-01.txt > Importance: High > > Eric, > > Thank you very much for your review of draft-edwards-urn-smpte-01! > > You mentioned concern about the reference for the statement: > "There are > no additional security considerations other than those normally > associated with the use and resolution of URNs in general." > > This statement is present in the Security Considerations > sections of the > following URN registrations RFCs: > > RFC 3043, RFC 3121, RFC 3151, RFC 3541, RFC 3614, RFC 3937, RFC 4179, > RFC 4198, RFC 4688, RFC 4854 > > Unfortunately, none of these RFCs have references to the particular > security considerations "normally associated with the use and > resolution > of URNs in general." > > While I could pull this language from this I-D, I am concerned about > removing security language which appears to have been accepted by the > IETF in 10 RFCs. I would like to seek Gen-ART's opinion on > this issue. > > With regard to the comment about "Participation in these Committees is > open to all with a bona fide interest in their work," this text is > sourced from a SMPTE document, thus I would prefer to keep it as it > stands, but if Gen-ART can document the grammatical concern on this > issue I could bring it up with SMPTE staff. > > Thomas Edwards > tedwards@pbs.org > Senior Manager, Interconnection Engineering > PBS > 6453 Stephenson Way > Alexandria, VA 22312 > (703) 739-5270 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) [mailto:eric.gray@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:18 PM > To: Thomas Edwards > Cc: gen-art@ietf.org; Chris Newman > Subject: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-edwards-urn-smpte-01.txt > > Thomas, > > I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) > reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see > http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > > Document: SMPTE URN Definition (draft-edwards-urn-smpte-01.txt) > > Reviewer: Eric Gray > Review Date: 05/29/2007 > IETF LC End Date: 05/29/2007 > > Summary: > This document is not ready for publication as an Informational RFC. > > Comments: > > In the security considerations section, the author indicates that > there are known security issues with "use and resolution of URNs > in general" but does not provide a reference to where these issues > are addressed (or at least identified). > > If such a reference exists, this section should cite that reference > and the author should add that reference to the list of (informative) > references. If no such reference exists, I am not sure what value > including this statement offers. > > NITs: > > In the first paragraph of the Introduction, third sentence, 8th > line: I recommend replacing "their" with "a committee's"... > > -- > Eric Gray > Principal Engineer > Ericsson > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > FETCH! WITH RUFF RUFFMAN > Fun all week long! Starting May 21st > New contestants! New challenges! More fun! > Check out a new season on weekdays, starting Memorial Day on > PBS KIDS GO! > pbskids.org > > _________________________________________________________________ > _________________________________________________________________ > > This email may contain material that is confidential or > proprietary to PBS and is intended solely for use by the > intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution of > such material by others, or forwarding of such material > without express permission, is strictly prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and > destroy all copies. > __________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-edwar… Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
- [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-e… Thomas Edwards
- [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-e… Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
- [Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART Last Call Review of draft-e… Eric Gray (LO/EUS)