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

Robert Wilton via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Mon, 28 June 2021 09:30 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 D2D1F3A32D1; Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Robert Wilton 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: 7.33.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <162487263632.15104.7075847684500025031@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2021 02:30:36 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/Fho9c9Gh9cY-Iyz27Fnp49f9SI4>
Subject: [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
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 09:30:37 -0000

Robert Wilton 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:



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.

(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.