Subject: [Ecrit] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 04:38:25 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-held-routing/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

section 4: The optional service URN seems like a thing where
it could be dangerous to be over-general, and where being
specific to emergency calling services would be a good
restriction. I would not like "service=urn:advertising" to be
something that'd work here. (At least not without
consideration of how that could be used for ad blocking:-)
The registry from RFC5031 does however seem to control that
correctly (via standards action or ECRIT WG/IESG review) so I
think it'd be better here to say that the service URN MUST be
in that specific registry. If that is already in the text
that's fine, but I didn't read it as quite having that MUST.

---

From: James Winterbottom <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:16:19 +1100

My apologies Stephen, I seem to have missed this email completely.
I will propose some changes and then update.

Again, my apologies.

> On 4 Feb 2016, at 11:38 pm, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>