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

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Zaheduzzaman Sarker 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the effort here.

I have one single comments or clarification question -

* Section 4:
   If a CA issues a certificate to an authentication service that
      includes an Enhanced JWT Claim Constraints certificate extension
      that contains the permittedValues JWTClaimName "confidence" and a
      permitted "high" value, then a verification service will treat as
      invalid any PASSporT it receives with a PASSporT "confidence"
      claim with a value other than "high".  However, a verification
      service will not treat as invalid a PASSporT it receives without a
      PASSporT "confidence" claim at all.

   Please clarify why a PASSporT is not invalid as described in the last
   sentence of be above bullet. I think it is supposed to be clear by preceding
   section, however, it is not (at least to me).