[secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08
Robert Sparks via Datatracker <email@example.com> Fri, 02 August 2019 20:10 UTC
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D678F120189; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 13:10:14 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Robert Sparks via Datatracker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Reply-To: Robert Sparks <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 13:10:14 -0700
Subject: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-artwork-folding-08
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 20:10:15 -0000
Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review result: Has Nits Reviewer: Robert Sparks Review result: Has Nits 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 document introduces no new security concerns for the Internet. It aims to establish conventions for wrapping long lines in source code sections of RFCs. It does have shell scripts embedded in the Appendix. I see no obvious security issues with those scripts. I strongly suggest this document proceed as Informational and not BCP. It's fine if some documents adopt the convention. Other conventions may work better for other groups. See, for example, the <allOneLine> convention described in section 2.1 of RFC4475. (No automated wrap/unwrap scripts have been written for that convention to my knowledge, but it would not be hard to create some.) Nits: In your headers, you anticipate receiving a two digit BCP number. At the moment, the next available BCP number has three digits. (We are well into the 200s). You have header lengths that would need to be adjusted. In 7.2.1 paragraph 5, I think you're saying to fail if any lines in the input document already end with a \. I think you mean to say any lines that you are considering wrapping. If I'm correct, the clarification may also need to be applied in other places where you say "the text content"
- [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-... Robert Sparks via Datatracker
- Re: [secdir] [netmod] Secdir last call review o... Kent Watsen