[secdir] secdir review for draft-rosen-urn-nena-01

Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net> Sat, 06 March 2010 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <shanna@juniper.net>
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 A7EC33A89E4; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:30:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 fORwogKkcpRH; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE713A89AF; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS5G+KE3GAu8ZHYxU8erh5z+ME2qmLo0n@postini.com; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:30:02 PST
Received: from p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.25) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:26:19 -0800
Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe02-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::c126:c633:d2dc:8090%11]) with mapi; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:26:18 -0500
From: Stephen Hanna <shanna@juniper.net>
To: "br@brianrosen.net" <br@brianrosen.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 21:26:15 -0500
Thread-Topic: secdir review for draft-rosen-urn-nena-01
Thread-Index: Acq81GWjk8ZNKlT9TYCK72AfCxOyTQ==
Message-ID: <AC6674AB7BC78549BB231821ABF7A9AE9037B677A6@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>
Subject: [secdir] secdir review for draft-rosen-urn-nena-01
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/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: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:30:00 -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 does not raise any particular security issues so
the security considerations section of the document is adequate.
Subsequent documents that define values and sub-registries within
the nena namespace may need more detailed discussions of security
considerations.

I did notice one non-security issue. In the Declaration of syntactic
structure in section 2, the structure the structure is given as
{NENAclass}:ClassSpecificString}. I don't know why curly braces are
being used here but I suppose they are intended to indicate that
NENAclass and ClassSpecificString are variable strings. If so,
there should be an opening curly brace before ClassSpecificString.

Thanks,

Steve