[stir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-stir-messaging-06

Nancy Cam-Winget via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 03 January 2023 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: stir@ietf.org
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF4CC152560; Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:55:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Nancy Cam-Winget via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: secdir@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-stir-messaging.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 9.4.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <167279013344.64136.12100689403691464747@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Nancy Cam-Winget <ncamwing@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 15:55:33 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/49s_XUutrPthMf9ba6XKqz1hWM4>
Subject: [stir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-stir-messaging-06
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2023 23:55:33 -0000

Reviewer: Nancy Cam-Winget
Review result: Not Ready

I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the 
IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the 
security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat 
these comments just like any other last call comments.


This document specifies how the PASSport framework (RFC 8225)can be used to
provide message integrity protection of text and multimedia messages 
by defining a new PASSPort type, e.g. JWT claim "msgi".

The draft seems straightforward, though personally I find naming the JWT 
and PASSport types "msgi" and "msg" respectively to be a little 
confusing/misleading as the claim is for "msg-integrity" perhaps
that is the suffix 'I'.  But that is a personal bias so assuming the working
group has accepted the nomenclature, you can leave the labels as such.

I found no issues with the draft except for one typo:
Section 3.2 last paragraph "mesages" should be "messages"