Browser crashed. Here's the real review.
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.
The summary of the review is ready with nits.
I expected to see mention of HTTPS, as opposed to HTTP, in the protocol definition. At a minimum
HTTPS MUST be used.
In the security considerations.
I wonder if using "451" status is worthwhile? I can accept either answer.
As this is a protocol transliteration, the references to other RFC's and security considersations seem on-target.
On 2/1/21, 2:19 PM, "Rich Salz via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Rich Salz
Review result: Has Nits
I reviewed this document for the security directorate, which tries to review all IETF drafts
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
