[secdir] Secdir review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01

Magnus Nyström <magnusn@gmail.com> Wed, 13 July 2011 05:31 UTC

Return-Path: <magnusn@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2D021F8BE3; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x8J-jzHc0ATZ; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E02721F8BDA; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5so2666692gyd.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eb7CvpgOPY9pbiYcJRiFPKYNXD/onYpBlgIGNQw45eo=; b=asV/bko1irH3a0DvHq/cIJmv4eDfUI99/5QUZSJnLrmHD/lXH/aIZMYbKhIi0392iT QmULZog87CprZBu/J5CHIiTSINGqUmgPjkcYiIojnU9yFNvW83rDhGL/qKcT9sp3sAyI yy52a4TSAQbNMdbbpu8y+svGv5tcj0UrW3wtY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.188.15 with SMTP id l15mr931345ybf.209.1310535071282; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.143.6 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:31:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CADajj4aJTjuFP4iahLdLgE7O8XKax_MQS1AXq47kvh+fitB2yg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Magnus_Nystr=F6m?= <magnusn@gmail.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org, draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace@tools.ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-polk-local-emergency-rph-namespace-01
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 05:31:13 -0000

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 establishes a new SIP priority header field for use in
local emergency situations.

As such, this could constitute an important addition to the SIP
resource priority header fields and I assume the document has been
appropriately reviewed by the SIP community. The one consideration I
had seems already to be reasonably discussed and covered in the
document - the possibility of misuse and, through this, disruption of
service.

One comment/question though: Section 2 states: "The 'esnet' namespace
SHOULD only be used in times of an emergency, where at least one end
of the signaling is within a local emergency organization" - why is
this a "SHOULD" and not a "MUST"? After all, the acronym "esnet"
stands for "Emergency Service NETwork". (Also, on the latter part of
that sentence - is it really "within" a local emergency organization -
should it not be that the initiator is a local emergency org?)

-- Magnus