[stir] STIR WG - PAY ATTENTION : Re: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Mon, 26 September 2022 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC0A1C14CF14 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.686
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6NlSApEr3zjg for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:36:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E32DBC14F74C for <stir@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2022 14:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([47.186.48.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 28QLafOP090034 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:36:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1664228202; bh=ewpJVnq/Ym4FY8c8QkdtIqxcQQ34h0KO8B4jCOSh8Bk=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=OBiCTWpgXujUq9tkUqC0CqiSYZ95w0+nc35FPRDRdigqFGRUlw/3/nY/Q9hecM9/j DHe1Xnu1m0lo6u1UR8eMiK9tC3duAlCw2PtYXHDI9K0hmWXdBM/Cg+m90Kt/tOgS8X 85s6XWHjYRUIqwUzeGVwvbSNfWuHv7M7LMnrtb7c=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.48.51] claimed to be [192.168.1.102]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------KS1OavLQgfwr4lPoerWDO1zk"
Message-ID: <d379b12a-b036-6989-93ef-abc8f5a58510@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 16:36:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Chris Wendt <chris-ietf@chriswendt.net>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
References: <CAL0qLwZaKc20eNus1wSj_-Zjys9prm1+55Ergtr=QDNi3G-sZg@mail.gmail.com> <22207E7F-87E9-41F1-B08E-5745F07353B5@chriswendt.net>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <22207E7F-87E9-41F1-B08E-5745F07353B5@chriswendt.net>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/BjvruGBgmP5gE8kUcj60nkix2As>
Subject: [stir] STIR WG - PAY ATTENTION : Re: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 21:36:49 -0000

Note the following change, and if it bothers you, speak early (don't 
wait for IETFLC).

RjS

On 9/26/22 4:21 PM, Chris Wendt wrote:
>> Section 14.2:
>>
>> The "SHOULD" presents an implementer with a choice, but includes no guidance about how to make that choice.  I suggest adding some, or reconsidering whether SHOULD is appropriate here.
> I did change this to a MUST, i think in the specific context of compact form procedures a MUST level is appropriate.
>