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

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 28 June 2021 19:30
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>
> Cc: IESG <[e-mail]>; IETF STIR Mail List <[e-mail]>; Ben Campbell
> <[e-mail]>; Robert Sparks <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [stir] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-enhance-
> rfc8226-03: (with COMMENT)
> 
> 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.
> 
I'm sure it will.


> > (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.

Thanks!

Rob


> 
> Russ