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

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I believe security ADs have been pushing back on text like
  "No special security considertaions"
Text aka
  "has the same general consideration as all URNs, but no others".
Is better. Add a ptr to a RFC (or other doc) where the security
considerations for URNs are discussed, and I think you are OK.

Well... that is how I have been dealing the the sec cons section
in docs that I get on my desk lately.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: maandag 28 april 2003 17:37
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: ID-NITS on: draft-bellifemine-urn-fipa-00.txt
> 
> 
> 
> > 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
>