Hi, all, Adam did his AD review of this document, and version -16 was posted 5 or 6 weeks ago, which resolved the issues Adam had raised. Unfortunately, the system didn't inform me that I had an action to take, so I haven't looked at it. I now have.
I have only one thing to comment on that Adam didn't, and I won't delay the last call for it. But I expect the SecDir review to bring it up, so it would be good to do another draft revision for it: The Security Considerations correctly say that this extension provides no new security services. But as this extension involves fees -- money -- it would be good to address whether interfering with this (faking, altering, intercepting, or blocking) commands or responses can be used as an attack to affect accounting or money exchanges, or to compromise privacy or confidentiality, in ways that are specific to this extension. Even if you decide that this is not a concern, that the relevant protocols already defend against such an attack, it's probably good to mention it so that there's no question. I will now request Last Call for this document, and thanks for the work on this. Barry _______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
