Re: [secdir] Review of draft-gellens-lost-validation-05

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

I added the expansion as noted in my original reply.  By the gen-art 
comments you mean Pete's?  I sent a separate email to everyone who has 
reviewed the draft asking if everyone is OK with Pete's last suggestion, 
which is to delete Sections 3 and 4 and add a reference to NENA i3 as a 
work in progress that will use the new tag.

--Randall

On 8 Mar 2020, at 20:18, Shawn Emery wrote:

> Yes, it's not listed as a well-known abbreviation in the RFC-editor's
> list.  Could you also send me an update of the draft stemming from the
> Gen-ART comments?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Shawn.
> --
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 5:38 PM Randall Gellens <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 4 Mar 2020, at 18:41, Shawn Emery wrote:
>>
>>> Reviewer: Shawn M. Emery
>>> Review result: Ready
>>>
>>> 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 draft specifies an IANA registry for the Location-to-Service
>>> Translation
>>> (LoST) Protocol Validation Service Tag under U-NAPTR.
>>>
>>> The security considerations section does exist and refers to RFC 
>>> 3958
>>> and
>>> 4848.
>>> I agree that this change does not introduce any new security
>>> considerations.
>>>
>>> General comments:
>>>
>>> None.
>>>
>>> Editorial comments:
>>>
>>> Abbreviations should be expanded in the title of the draft and when
>>> first
>>> used (in this case the Abstract).
>>> s/...//
>>>
>>> Shawn.
>>> --
>>
>> Thanks for your review, Shawn.  Just to clarify, your suggestion is 
>> that
>> "S-NAPTR" be expanded in the Abstract, e.g., by adding 
>> "(Straightforward
>> Name Authority PoinTeR)".
>>
>> --Randall
>>