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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 28 June 2021 18:30 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 4FFB03A14E6 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6wAMrdvdvB7M for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E29E3A14EC for <stir@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 11:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA222300BBD for <stir@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:30:27 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net
Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id pBRPpNCDlIJU for <stir@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:30:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home (pool-141-156-161-153.washdc.fios.verizon.net [141.156.161.153]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7E50300AEB; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:30:21 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <162487263632.15104.7075847684500025031@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:30:21 -0400
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A65B0F2A-AAF4-4FC8-87A7-3A40144CEBBB@vigilsec.com>
References: <162487263632.15104.7075847684500025031@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/BtwQKy5RD_gQaE4TgH2lA-nubko>
Subject: Re: [stir] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 28 Jun 2021 18:30:31 -0000

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