Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-stir-cert-delegation-03

Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com> Mon, 22 February 2021 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D535E3A2195; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:44:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=googlemail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vrc4DP2ehSDg; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:44:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x932.google.com (mail-ua1-x932.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::932]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A0B83A2184; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:44:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x932.google.com with SMTP id 62so4944541uar.13; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:44:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BRiLoQMf2GgN2/RDIZwyCvl/M8ob87ZdJcjmlYBNvnA=; b=dxZw8HRBCNhRCSzWW/QZPZmf4AulqvzQv4swFXfDmtOqCeG14NCIWQx1A2hdphzvzU CWKkwEyELKD/JEB23sVcLNfX7uE00c7bwYv+CSowi6FeczABUS0rEm2bfH1ievYyxpA9 FVqiuLA62vUDVib8RTtMarDhRgtFrMrnCPdIKNqJPCBdcuwZb8bVN0Pnv+3cc9yEbMN2 lgKWk+LYYe7zjyEHgNZvYW7IxQSpSiVbYZtOOGDXrSEdEzePOlgRr2yek75b+VReYC4Z hrqsICiMFRuhTi6LFrFnkf1EifJMwG4ppozCmwaYxAS5HT29LHRDEV/pdRzYso3kFlyS eh6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BRiLoQMf2GgN2/RDIZwyCvl/M8ob87ZdJcjmlYBNvnA=; b=NFv6PerdTkvK5yWXwL6ETZUMnK++SsdX6y1KaS8Ohvmu6ADQR2FSV+VuTcnvBxmqrl y7RNyBNX4/nuCpYjX1Coe10vels5FJ1NZITjMWy8Ve6mZMCDxpjWsX1K7SceVq7ozJch 7rmZyzypnk8I4G9bM9aiNpIsLH5K3Fzxdj0l0xBGrsd2Cr7EeuKI3zv/abE0ttkmw7fv lCT9bvnipEPdYBcXXkVw+OGJ0IR+VsZfrDijr8Hdo9ySdFHW4OImUETweVahQaFYvZBJ svRQ/VCF/F9nsSYMX7bztQW5DjwLUAblrB6dhe0+YGwCoSNlrqlTTYZkIRImZeznzTkA BAIw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5337gJcUdfnk02Zljv2v8rT26PM1dG9ih2B9qZoJ2G2dPEz8LOHx V6bLST5PAqI5eOmjMI436lH54M0XK2IjjLYZsk+5DvEG
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKJ7bNI1JrOVBPHEo0mpQh4KbSajD4LYDyHeSTNqokM7Xyb2TKP/OMJgDqQs2G1rHJefx/xo+T6JCtiTOLDPo=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:2619:: with SMTP id c25mr16071014uao.46.1614037484509; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:44:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <159847741398.23291.8299604699001624244@ietfa.amsl.com> <B2AF5132-9568-495D-954A-3836F28FAEA4@team.neustar>
In-Reply-To: <B2AF5132-9568-495D-954A-3836F28FAEA4@team.neustar>
From: Ines Robles <mariainesrobles@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2021 01:44:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP+sJUcY4pApj5h=JnU6wH-vqGxfErcci7M+CAQnUu4YUzwQ8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@team.neustar>
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "stir@ietf.org" <stir@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-stir-cert-delegation.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-stir-cert-delegation.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eb1d0805bbf5624f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Rbeton-LckyxM6UNFXEaaAL3JP0>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-stir-cert-delegation-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 23:44:48 -0000

Hi Jon,

Thank you very much for your comments.

Best regards,

Ines

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 1:41 AM Peterson, Jon <jon.peterson@team.neustar>
wrote:

> Hi Ines,
>
> Thanks for the read on this one (and sorry for the lengthy RTT). A few
> responses.
>
>     Minor issues:
>
>     1-Introduction Section:
>
>     "..., including various forms of robocalling, voicemail hacking, and
>     swatting..." --> should a reference to RFC7375 be added here?
>
> Sure, I added that.
>
>     2- It would be nice to add in Terminology section:
>
>     -  delegation: the concept of delegation and its levels are defined in
> RFC8226.
>     - definition for "legitimate spoofing". I understand that the draft
> explain it
>     with an example.
>
> Okay, done.
>
>     3- It would be nice to add references to concepts, e.g. cA boolean -->
> cA
>     boolean [rfc5280#section-4.2.1.9]
>
> Happy to add an RFC5280 ref there, though there's one in the next sentence
> as well.
>
>     "x5u" link -> "x5u" (X.509 URL) [RFC7515#section-4.1.5] link
>
> Above, the document already clarified that it is the '"x5u" field of a
> PASSporT", so I think this is okay,
>
>     4- Section 4: It would be nice to add graphics explaining the process.
>     E.g. can be used as a model the images displayed in
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/download.php/47134/IPNNI-2019-00043R000.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!pqqZYxfzyDJsOfjv6c430dpNOf2YhrmkDNAxZirgs5A8IzZ83HtQcqUazIErtBmFUer3YYg$
>
>     or
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://niccstandards.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ND1522V1.1.1.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!pqqZYxfzyDJsOfjv6c430dpNOf2YhrmkDNAxZirgs5A8IzZ83HtQcqUazIErtBmFvLx6Y_8$
>
>
> Not sure about adding new pictures at this point; or at least, I think the
> basic idea should be clear from the text by itself.
>
>     5- Section 5:"Authentication service behavior for delegate
> certificates is
>     little
>        changed from [RFC8224] STIR behavior" --> It is not clear to me
> what are the
>        little changes.
>
>     Additionally, how you quantify little/big changes?, maybe something
> like?:
>     "Authentication service behavior varies from STIR behavior [RFC8224] as
>     follows:...."
>
> Okay, I can do that.
>
>     6- Section 8.1: Should the picture displayed in
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/104/slides/slides-104-stir-certificate-delegation-00--Slide__;!!N14HnBHF!pqqZYxfzyDJsOfjv6c430dpNOf2YhrmkDNAxZirgs5A8IzZ83HtQcqUazIErtBmFHaoqDrY$
>
>     5 be added here?
>
> Really would rather not do new pictures at this point.
>
>     7- Security Consideration section: should a reference to RFC7375 be
> added here?
>
> Added.
>
>     Nits/editorial comments:
>
>     8- Expand the first time: JWS -> JSON Web Signature (JWS)
>
> Done. Thanks!
>
> Jon Peterson
> Neustar, Inc.
>
>     Thank you for this document,
>
>     Ines.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>