[secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-14 (resend)

"Patrick Cain" <pcain@coopercain.com> Thu, 01 January 2009 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <secdir-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: secdir-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-secdir-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A88B93A69B9; Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:21:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624CE3A69EA; Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:32:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.586
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.586 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lCdytZw+0EMR; Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:32:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout06.yourhostingaccount.com (mailout06.yourhostingaccount.com [65.254.253.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854BE3A6916; Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:32:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailscan06.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.1.15.6] helo=mailscan06.yourhostingaccount.com) by mailout06.yourhostingaccount.com with esmtp (Exim) id 1LIUCv-0004JS-7J; Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:31:53 -0500
Received: from impout02.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.1.55.2] helo=impout02.yourhostingaccount.com) by mailscan06.yourhostingaccount.com with esmtp (Exim) id 1LIUCu-000502-Ff; Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:31:52 -0500
Received: from authsmtp04.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.1.18.4]) by impout02.yourhostingaccount.com with NO UCE id yLXs1a00305G96J0000000; Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:31:52 -0500
X-EN-OrigOutIP: 10.1.18.4
X-EN-IMPSID: yLXs1a00305G96J0000000
Received: from c-98-216-48-22.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.216.48.22] helo=Familyroom) by authsmtp04.yourhostingaccount.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim) id 1LIUCu-0005wB-1O; Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:31:52 -0500
Received: from Familyroom by Familyroom (PGP Universal service); Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:31:50 -0500
X-PGP-Universal: processed; by Familyroom on Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:31:50 -0500
From: Patrick Cain <pcain@coopercain.com>
To: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net, martin.thomson@andrew.com, james.winterbottom@andrew.com
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 15:31:23 -0500
Message-ID: <013f01c96c4f$f5865ed0$e0931c70$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AclP3fpZIOZKnRFLS9uHMmGOrLYfeA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-EN-UserInfo: 058f9b27fa04b0cf04458fb359a831ba:155e17fc3c7b3afdad05516cd0497062
X-EN-AuthUser: pcain@coopercain.com
X-EN-OrigIP: 98.216.48.22
X-EN-OrigHost: c-98-216-48-22.hsd1.ma.comcast.net
Cc: geopriv-chairs@tools.ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, secdir@ietf.org
Subject: [secdir] Security review of draft-ietf-geopriv-pdif-lo-profile-14 (resend)
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: secdir-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: secdir-bounces@ietf.org

[You may have seen this message before. Many recipients apparently have not.
:(  ]

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.

Document synopsis (snipped):

There is growing interest in being able to use location information
contained in a PIDF-LO for routing applications.  To allow successful
interoperability between applications, location information needs to be
normative and more tightly constrained than is currently specified in the
RFC 4119 (PIDF-LO).  This document makes recommendations on how to
constrain,
represent and interpret locations in a PIDF-LO.

-----

The document looks fine to me from a security standpoint. The security
considerations correctly points out that this is mostly a formatting
document and other places define and recommend proper usage and protection
of the data.

Pat Cain

_______________________________________________
secdir mailing list
secdir@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir