Re: [stir] WGLC: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-02

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Thu, 20 April 2023 15:12 UTC

From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D6FAB335-FF23-4AD0-94D4-CB4B05CA4072"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 11:10:53 -0400
References: <3B4ECB37-214D-4B60-A260-CA39D4594691@nostrum.com> <34D290DC-3C4C-499F-B7A0-7A152F91EB84@nostrum.com>
To: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <34D290DC-3C4C-499F-B7A0-7A152F91EB84@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <CBA33521-56E0-40CB-8485-97CE37779C7B@vigilsec.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/4Rq9ejU1na0XY8DE-zt2jXndg4s>
Subject: Re: [stir] WGLC: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-02
Precedence: list

I do not think this document is ready for the IESG yet.


MAJOR:

General: In many places, the document uses: "rsp" PASSporT.  This is not really accurate.  It is an "rsp" claim in a PASSporT.

General: Likewise for "div" PASSporT.

Section 4 says:

   [TBD - Identity in 3xx, 4xx, 6xx responses?]

This needs to be filled in or removed.

Section 11: This section needs to be completed.

Section 12: This section needs to be completed.


MINOR:

Section 1 says:

   The property of providing identity in the backwards direction of a
   call is here called "connected identity."

I think it would be more clear to avoid the direction, and say:

   The property of providing identity of the called party to the calling party
   is called "connected identity."

The next few sentences properly introduce direction, which is needed in the rest of the document.

Can Section 5 be structured to avoid having a single subsection?

Section 7 says: 

   Users will not always place
   calls where the connected identity is crucial, but when they do, they
   should have a way to tell their devices that the call should not be
   completed if it arrives at an unexpected or insecure party.

Can we replace "insecure" with "unidentified" or "unauthenticated"?

Can Section 8 be structured to avoid having a single subsection?


NITS:

Section 1: s/initiated by a SIP/initiated by SIP/

Section 1: s/request, for various backwards-compatibility reasons/request/

Section 1: s/would not be signable/could not be properly signed/

Section 1: s/any work towards multiparty/multiparty/

Section 3: s/be unceremoniously dumped/be dumped/

Section 3: s/a local flat file/a local configuration file/

Section 4: s/In sunny-day uses cases/In straightforward call setup/

Section 5: s/Many of the use cases that motivate connected identity are not sunny-day cases, but instead involve retargeting/Use cases involve authorized retargeting motivate connected identity/


> From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
> Subject: WGLC: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-02
> Date: April 13, 2023 at 2:15:15 PM CDT
> To: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
> Cc: STIR Chairs <stir-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update.authors@ietf.org
> 
> [Oops, I messed up the authors’ alias. Apologies for the repeat.]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is a Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-02 [1]. Please send feedback to the list and the authors by 28 April, 2023. 
> 
> If you have read the document and think it is ready to go, please say so.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update/>

[stir] WGLC: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-02 Ben Campbell
Re: [stir] WGLC: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-02 Russ Housley
Re: [stir] WGLC: draft-ietf-stir-rfc4916-update-02 Peterson, Jon