[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ID-NITS on: draft-bellifemine-urn-fipa-00.txt

To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: ID-NITS on: draft-bellifemine-urn-fipa-00.txt
From: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:37:04 -0700
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155016A3D45@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>

Empty security considerations section

Not very well worded,  but I think:
"No special security considertaions" was meant to indicate, "has
the same general consideration as all URNs, but no others".  Since
these are used as stable references for FIPA's specs, I don't
see other issues.  Is this just a wording problem, or am I missing
part of the security analysis here?
					regards,
							Ted Hardie

References:
- ID-NITS on: draft-bellifemine-urn-fipa-00.txt
  - From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Evaluation: draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2511bis - Internet X.509 Publi c Key Infrastructure Certificate Request Message Format (CRMF) to Propose d Standard
Next by Date: RE: ID-NITS on: draft-bellifemine-urn-fipa-00.txt
Previous by thread: ID-NITS on: draft-bellifemine-urn-fipa-00.txt
Next by thread: Re: ID-NITS on: draft-bellifemine-urn-fipa-00.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread