[stir] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-stir-rph-05: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 17 May 2018 22:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
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 3625612895E; Thu, 17 May 2018 15:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-stir-rph@ietf.org, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, stir-chairs@ietf.org, housley@vigilsec.com, stir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.80.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152659695321.1530.2659397954219553276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 15:42:33 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/UfmmhR5hXzGHwsz1tDueA4_jemI>
Subject: [stir] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-stir-rph-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 17 May 2018 22:42:33 -0000

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-rph-05: Yes

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:


Thank you for addressing my first discussion point and comments. I still have a
concern on the second discuss point:

   o  The verification of the signature MUST include means of verifying
      that the signer is authoritative for the signed content of the
      resource priority namespace in the PASSporT."

The authors explained via email that they expect this to depend on some ATIS
work. I understand that such work is in progress, but has not reached the point
of being citable. I don't want to see this document blocked on that work, so I
cleared my discuss. However, I still think it would be a good idea to add some
scoping text early in the document to the effect that this mechanism is
intended for environments where some means of verifying that the signer is
authoritative is available. (In addition to keeping the normative text in §7.2)