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

Thanks Ines. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Aug 26, 2020, at 5:30 PM, Ines Robles via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-stir-cert-delegation-03
> Reviewer: Ines Robles
> Review Date: 2020-08-26
> IETF LC End Date: 2020-08-26
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> 
> This specification details how that authority can be delegated from a parent
> certificate to a subordinate certificate.  This supports a  number of use cases
> where callers want to use a particular calling number, but for whatever reason,
> their outbound calls will not pass through the authentication service of the
> service provider that controls that numbering resource, it includes also those
> where service providers grant credentials to enterprises or other customers
> capable of signing calls with Secure Telephone Identity Revisited (STIR).
> 
> I have some minor suggestions/questions to the authors.
> 
> Major issues: None
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> 1-Introduction Section:
> 
> "..., including various forms of robocalling, voicemail hacking, and
> swatting..." --> should a reference to RFC7375 be added here?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 3- It would be nice to add references to concepts, e.g. cA boolean --> cA
> boolean [rfc5280#section-4.2.1.9]
> 
> "x5u" link -> "x5u" (X.509 URL) [RFC7515#section-4.1.5] link
> 
> 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://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/download.php/47134/IPNNI-2019-00043R000.pdf
> or https://niccstandards.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ND1522V1.1.1.pdf
> 
> 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:...."
> 
> 6- Section 8.1: Should the picture displayed in
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/104/slides/slides-104-stir-certificate-delegation-00--Slide
> 5 be added here?
> 
> 7- Security Consideration section: should a reference to RFC7375 be added here?
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 8- Expand the first time: JWS -> JSON Web Signature (JWS)
> 
> Thank you for this document,
> 
> Ines.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art