[stir] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 07 April 2020 19:35 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 EACF33A0FE7; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 12:35:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert@ietf.org, stir-chairs@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, housley@vigilsec.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.124.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <158628812675.31223.5976532284560812662@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 12:35:26 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/MlipeU7nbCuDSG5w0OwS0vGxps4>
Subject: [stir] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-08: (with DISCUSS and 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: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 19:35:27 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-08: Discuss 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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 5. The text notes that procedures for the authentication and verification service for the “div-o” claim will be “left to future work”. Can the rational for this deferral be explained. Creating an interoperable solution without this guidance seem challenging as it would be crucial guidance on processing this newly introduced claim. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Please respond to Phillip Hallam-Baker SECDIR review (thanks Phillip!) ** Section 4.1. Per “Provided that these PASSporTs share the same "orig" and "dest" values, the retargeting entity's authentication service SHOULD generate only one "div" PASSporT”, why not MUST here? What’s the corner case? ** Section 4.2. Per “However, note that in some use cases, including certain ways that blind transfer is implemented, it is possible that an established call will be retargeted long after it has originally been placed, and verification services may want to allow a longer window for the freshness of the innermost PASSporT if the call is transferred from a trusted party.”, are there any recommendations or bounds that can be placed on the duration of this “longer window of freshness”? ** Editorial Nit: -- Section 3. Typo. s/identifiier/identifier/
- [stir] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [stir] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Peterson, Jon
- Re: [stir] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Roman Danyliw