Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9410 <draft-ietf-stir-identity-header-errors-handling-08> for your review

[[e-mail]]

Authors,

While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as necessary) 
the following questions, which are also in the XML file.

1) <!-- [rfced] Note that the title of the document has been updated as
follows. Please review and let us know if updates are required. 

Original:
Identity Header Errors Handling for STIR

Current: 
Handling of Identity Header Errors for Secure Telephone Identity
Revisited (STIR) -->


2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear in the
title) for use on https://www.rfc-editor.org/search. -->  


3) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing the following text in the abstract 
into two seperate sentences for better comprehension. Does the following
suggestion retain your intended meaning?

Original: 
This document extends STIR and the Authenticated Identity Management
in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) error handling procedures to 
include the mapping of verification failure reasons to STIR defined 4xx 
codes so the failure reason of an Identity header field can be conveyed to 
the upstream authentication service when local policy dictates that the 
call should continue in the presence of a verification failure.

Perhaps: 
This document extends Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR) and
the Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol 
(SIP) error-handling procedures to include the mapping of verification 
failure reasons to STIR-defined 4xx codes. The failure reason of an 
Identity header field can be conveyed to the upstream authentication 
service when local policy dictates that the call should continue in the 
presence of a verification failure.-->


4) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing the following sentence for
readability. Does the following suggestion retain your intended meaning?

Original: 
[RFC8224] describes the use of the STIR framework in the SIP
protocol [RFC3261] and defines both the authentication service that creates 
a PASSporT, defined in [RFC8225], and delivers it in an Identity header 
field and the verification service that correspondingly verifies the 
PASSporT and embedded originating identity.

Perhaps: 
[RFC8224] describes the use of the STIR framework in the SIP
protocol [RFC3261].  It defines both a) the authentication service that 
creates a PASSporT [RFC8225] and delivers it in an Identity header field, 
and b) the verification service that correspondingly verifies the PASSporT 
and embedded originating identity.-->


5) <!-- [rfced] We suggest rephrasing the following sentence for clarity. Does the following suggestion retain your intended meaning?

Original: 
Additionally, it addresses the issue of the current 4xx error
response and that when there is a verification error, the call is terminated.

Perhaps: 
Additionally, it addresses the issue of the current 4xx error
response, i.e., the call is terminated when a verification error is
present. -->


6) <!-- [rfced] We have rephrased the following sentence for clarity. 
Please let us know any objections.

Original: 
In many cases of, for example, inadvertent or operational errors
that do not represent any identity falsification type of attempt, the 
policy of continuing the call even though the identity is not verified, may 
be the preferred policy.

Current: 
For example, in many cases of inadvertent or operational errors that
do not represent any type of identity falsification attempt, the preferred
policy may be to continue the call despite the unverified
identity. -->


7) <!-- [rfced] For readability, please consider whether the following correctly conveys the intended meaning. 

Original:
   For the handling of multiple Identity header fields and the potential
   situation that some of the Identity header fields in a call may pass
   verification but others may have errors, this document defines the
   method of adding an identifier so that the authentication service can
   uniquely identify which Identity header field is being referred to in
   the case of an error.

Perhaps:
   To handle multiple Identity header fields where 
   some in a call may be verified while others may not (i.e., they have 
   errors), this document defines a method by which an identifier is added 
   to the header so that the authentication service can uniquely identify 
   which Identity header field is being referred to in
   the case of an error.
-->


8) <!-- [rfced] We have updated artwork elements to sourcecode throughout 
the document. Please review the "type" attribute of each sourcecode element
in the XML file to ensure correctness. If the current list of preferred
values for "type" 
(https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/sourcecode-types.txt) does not
contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it is
acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set. -->


9) <!-- [rfced] Please review the following text. Terms such as "cause code" and "call dialog" do not appear in RFC 8824.  Please let us know how/if we should update the text and/or citation.

Original: 
   The
   association of a "ppi" parameter with a Reason header field using
   "STIR" protocol MUST only identify a single cause code in the context
   of a call dialog defined in [RFC8224] or in future documents defining
   STIR related errors.
-->


10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for the following 
abbreviations per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please 
review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure correctness.

Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR)
User Agent Client (UAC)
User Agent Server (UAS) -->


11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the 
online Style Guide
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> and let
us know if any changes are needed.  Note that our script did not flag any
words in particular, but this should still be reviewed as a best
practice. -->


Thank you.

RFC Editor


On Jul 10, 2023, at 8:45 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

*****IMPORTANT*****

Updated 2023/07/10

RFC Author(s):
--------------

Instructions for Completing AUTH48

Your document has now entered AUTH48.  Once it has been reviewed and 
approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC.  
If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies 
available as listed in the FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/).

You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties 
(e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing 
your approval.

Planning your review 
---------------------

Please review the following aspects of your document:

*  RFC Editor questions

   Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor 
   that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as 
   follows:

   <!-- [rfced] ... -->

   These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email.

*  Changes submitted by coauthors 

   Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your 
   coauthors.  We assume that if you do not speak up that you 
   agree to changes submitted by your coauthors.

*  Content 

   Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot 
   change once the RFC is published.  Please pay particular attention to:
   - IANA considerations updates (if applicable)
   - contact information
   - references

*  Copyright notices and legends

   Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in
   RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions 
   (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/).

*  Semantic markup

   Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of  
   content are correctly tagged.  For example, ensure that <sourcecode> 
   and <artwork> are set correctly.  See details at 
   <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>.

*  Formatted output

   Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the 
   formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is 
   reasonable.  Please note that the TXT will have formatting 
   limitations compared to the PDF and HTML.


Submitting changes
------------------

To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as all 
the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties 
include:

   *  your coauthors
   
   *  [e-mail] (the RPC team)

   *  other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., 
      IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the 
      responsible ADs, and the document shepherd).
     
   *  [e-mail], which is a new archival mailing list 
      to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion 
      list:
     
     *  More info:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc
     
     *  The archive itself:
        https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/

     *  Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out 
        of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter).
        If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you 
        have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, 
        [e-mail] will be re-added to the CC list and 
        its addition will be noted at the top of the message. 

You may submit your changes in one of two ways:

An update to the provided XML file
 — OR —
An explicit list of changes in this format

Section # (or indicate Global)

OLD:
old text

NEW:
new text

You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit 
list of changes, as either form is sufficient.

We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem
beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, 
and technical changes.  Information about stream managers can be found in 
the FAQ.  Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager.


Approving for publication
--------------------------

To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating
that you approve this RFC for publication.  Please use ‘REPLY ALL’,
as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval.


Files 
-----

The files are available here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9410.xml
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9410.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9410.pdf
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9410.txt

Diff file of the text:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9410-diff.html
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9410-rfcdiff.html (side by side)

Diff of the XML: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9410-xmldiff1.html

The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own 
diff files of the XML.  

Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9410.original.v2v3.xml 

XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format updates 
only: 
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9410.form.xml


Tracking progress
-----------------

The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here:
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9410

Please let us know if you have any questions.  

Thank you for your cooperation,

RFC Editor

--------------------------------------
RFC9410 (draft-ietf-stir-identity-header-errors-handling-08)

Title            : Identity Header Errors Handling for STIR
Author(s)        : C. Wendt
WG Chair(s)      : Ben Campbell, Robert Sparks, Russ Housley
Area Director(s) : Murray Kucherawy, Francesca Palombini