[stir] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with COMMENT)

Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Fri, 25 June 2021 15:04 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 C546E3A1B7E; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226@ietf.org, stir-chairs@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, rjsparks@nostrum.com, ben@nostrum.com, ben@nostrum.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.32.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Éric Vyncke <evyncke@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <162463348978.18066.15281632456213641582@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 08:04:49 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/A2qMEMAbpu9jGXM0Qz81ckihyqE>
Subject: [stir] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 15:04:50 -0000

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be

I hope that this helps to improve the document,




-- Abstract --
"This document updates RFC 8226 to define an additional way that the JWT claims
can be constrained" at first sight, it is unclear whether the change adds a
constraints or present another set of constraints (may be it is being
non-ENglish native issue...) The introduction clarifies the ambiguity but the
abstract should stand alone.

-- Section 3 --
Suggest to be consistent with the use of double quotes in <to the iat, orig,
and dest claims.  The baseline PASSporT claims ("iat", "orig", and "dest")>.

-- Section 7 --
Wondering whether a reference to RFC4949 is required for "renewal".