Re: [stir] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with COMMENT)

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Rob:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the document, despite not being my area of expertise I found it easy
> to read and understand.
> 
> A couple of minor comments:
> 
> (1) Like Erik, when reading section 4, I was wondering whether it would be
> helpful to have an example that included both mustInclude and permittedValues. 
> But of course, I note that you effectively do that in section 5.

I hope the change proposed to resolve Erik's comment is also sufficient to resolve your comment.

> (2) In the security section, it states:
> 
>   Certificate issuers should not include an entry in mustExclude for
>   the "rcdi" claim for a certificate that will be used with the
>   PASSporT Extension for Rich Call Data defined in
>   [I-D.ietf-stir-passport-rcd].  Excluding this claim would prevent the
>   integrity protection mechanism from working properly.
> 
> I was wondering whether it would be helpful to include this as RFC 2119 SHOULD
> NOT in 3, or perhaps have a forward reference from the section 3 description of
> mustExclude to the "rcdi" consideration in the security section.

Sure:

   Certificate issuers SHOULD NOT include an entry in mustExclude for
   the "rcdi" claim for a certificate that will be used with the
   PASSporT Extension for Rich Call Data defined in
   [I-D.ietf-stir-passport-rcd].  Excluding this claim would prevent the
   integrity protection mechanism from working properly.

Russ