Re: [stir] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-02

It would be far more useful for me to hear "I have read this draft and 
see nothing that I think needs to change before sending it to IETF LC" 
than to hear +1 for support.

Is that what the +1s so far mean?

RjS

On 8/6/20 9:18 AM, Richard Shockey wrote:
> +1  I support this as well.
>
> —
> Richard Shockey
>
> Shockey Consulting LLC
>
> Chairman of the Board SIP Forum
>
> www.shockey.us
>
> www.sipforum.org
>
> richard<at>shockey.us
>
> Skype-Linkedin-Facebook –Twitter  rshockey101
>
> PSTN +1 703-593-2683
>
>   
>
> On 8/6/20, 8:47 AM, "stir on behalf of DOLLY, MARTIN C" <stir-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of md3135@att.com> wrote:
>
>      I support as well
>
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: stir <stir-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Sean Turner
>      Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 1:38 AM
>      To: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
>      Subject: Re: [stir] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-02
>
>      Hi!
>
>      Support moving this one along, and I think these are all minor.
>
>      0) I thought the security considerations was missing something about compromise leading to misuse of network resources, but it’s the 2nd paragraph of s1. That shows you which section I read first ;) Might be worth repeating that s1 blurb in s8 or at least referring to it from s8? Maybe:
>
>        The security consideration enumerated in
>        Section 1 and the security considerations discussed
>        in [RFC8224], Section 12, are applicable.
>
>      1) I hit the nits button (also out of habit) there are a lot unused references and they can be deleted:
>
>      == Unused Reference: 'RFC3261' is defined on line 275, but no explicit
>         reference was found in the text
>
>      == Unused Reference: 'RFC8226' is defined on line 305, but no explicit
>         reference was found in the text
>
>      == Unused Reference: 'RFC7340' is defined on line 322, but no explicit
>         reference was found in the text
>
>      == Unused Reference: 'RFC7375' is defined on line 327, but no explicit
>         reference was found in the text
>
>      == Unused Reference: 'RFC8126' is defined on line 331, but no explicit
>         reference was found in the text
>
>      2) Do the examples in s3.1, 3.2, and s4 match the order required in s5? I.e., shouldn’t the examples be as follow to be in lexicographic order:
>
>      s3.1:
>      {
>       "dest":{["uri":"urn:service:sos"]},
>       "iat":1443208345,
>       "orig":{"tn":"12155551212"},
>       "rph":{"ESorig":["esnet,x"]}
>      }
>
>      s3.2:
>      {
>       "dest":{["tn":"12155551212"]},
>       "iat":1443208345,
>       "orig":{"tn":"12155551213"},
>       "rph":{"EScallback":["esnet,x"]}
>      }
>
>      s4:
>      {
>       "dest":{["tn":"12155551212"]},
>       "iat":1443208345,
>       "orig":{"tn":"12155551213"},
>       "rph":{"EScallback":["esnet,x"]},
>       "sph":"psap-callback"
>      }
>
>      3) In s3.2, there’s a reference to "r-values”. What’s that?
>
>      4) Should this “should only” be a SHOULD:
>
>       The value of the "sph" claim key SHOULD be "psap-callback”
>       to match the SIP Priority header field value for authorized  emergency services callbacks.
>
>      4) In s5, s/order,/order:
>
>      5) In s6, should the compact form for ‘rph’ PASSPORTS be NOT RECOMMENDED, i.e.,
>
>      OLD:
>
>        The use of the compact form of PASSporT is not specified in this
>        document or recommended for 'rph' PASSporTs.
>
>      NEW:
>
>        The use of the compact form of PASSporT is not specified in this
>        document and it is NOT RECOMMENDED for 'rph' PASSporTs.
>
>      6) 2119 and 8174 should be normative references.
>
>      Cheers,
>
>      spt
>
>      > On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:29, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>      >
>      >
>      > This is the STIR WG Last Call for "Assertion Values for a Resource Priority Header Claim and a SIP Priority Header Claim in Support of Emergency Services Networks” <draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-02>.  Please review the document and send your comments to the STIR WG mail list by 22 August 2020.
>      >
>      > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.
>      > org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dstir-2Drph-2Demergency-2Dservices_&d=DwIGaQ&c=L
>      > FYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQhCmpw7ItG0r2g&m=rc3BKD0F1A86-CRpYcNpr
>      > 3ms70HuQtKNY4CHDOwLFi4&s=wrhfFB0s-E4uOkriBv9h6dXa72267K1J1fyz_BiBkNQ&e
>      > =
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      > Robert & Russ
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > stir mailing list
>      > stir@ietf.org
>      > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail
>      > man_listinfo_stir&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQhCmpw7I
>      > tG0r2g&m=rc3BKD0F1A86-CRpYcNpr3ms70HuQtKNY4CHDOwLFi4&s=ZKKsr6tspW-kbfj
>      > ncoP6hDzO5sgTK73kzp7v8GrK9z0&e=
>
>      _______________________________________________
>      stir mailing list
>      stir@ietf.org
>      https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_stir&d=DwIGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=G9v8uCSSQhCmpw7ItG0r2g&m=rc3BKD0F1A86-CRpYcNpr3ms70HuQtKNY4CHDOwLFi4&s=ZKKsr6tspW-kbfjncoP6hDzO5sgTK73kzp7v8GrK9z0&e=
>      _______________________________________________
>      stir mailing list
>      stir@ietf.org
>      https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir