Re: [stir] Review of: draft-ietf-stir-passport-05

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

Jon,

On 7/29/2016 10:46 AM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> I wouldn't say it's a correction to the STIR charter - the charter was
> always clear that it was not limited to SIP (see the bits about "one or
> more non-SIP hops" and "out-of-band mechanism" in the charter). But given
> that our original signing mechanism was, as I said, a concatenation of SIP
> header field values, the intervention was that other protocols would need
> something less bound to SIP. JWT turned out to be the solution that the
> group had consensus to adopt.

JWT has nothing to do with SIP.  So when applied to a SIP context, it's 
entirely artificial.  And yes, I noted the views that thought it simpler 
or equivalent to the computed string, but could not see the explicit 
logic that made JWT a better choice, no does it seem obvious to me. 
Quite the contrary.

Note that during the wg session in Berlin there was /still/ question 
about where to put the JWT information.


> If you want a record of this intervention, I might point you to the Oct 9
> 2015 virtual interim where this was the focus:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stir/current/msg02140.html
>
>
> ... and then the intense list discussion that followed hard upon it.

The recording of that interim is not accessible and the very terse 
summary text of the session show nothing about an intervention.  And 
there was no mailing list activity for the next several days afterward. 
Nor do I see anything in the mailing list postings that /do/ show up 
those several days later.

So I've no idea what you meant by "hard upon it."

Hence your explanation:

      "we need to build more generically for real-time communications 
rather than just SIP."

does not seem to reflected in the wg record.


d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net