Re: [stir] Third WGLC: draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd-12

Russ Housley <> Mon, 02 August 2021 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8DD3A083D for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 08:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W9b7WmmGJopn for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 08:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 881333A082F for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 08:55:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9DB7300BF7 for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:55:53 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 3qGiTqW6zMir for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from a860b60074bd.fios-router.home ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF879300AEB for <>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:55:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.21\))
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 11:55:46 -0400
References: <>
To: IETF STIR Mail List <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.21)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [stir] Third WGLC: draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 15:56:00 -0000

I have a few comments.  All of them are pretty minor.

In the Abstract, it says: '... subsequently rendered to the intended called party.'  I think it is rendered to the called party, whether that party is intended or otherwise.

In Section 6.2, first paragraph, it says: '... contents of the certified "rcd" claim.'  I do not know what 'certified' means here.  To me, it usually means that it is included in a certificate, but that is not the meaning here.  Please clarify.

In Section 7, first paragraph, it refers to a 'STIR certificate eco-system'.  I think this can be simplified by just saying that the 'authorized party' is not necessarily the subject of a STIR certificate,

In Section 12.1, first paragraph, the term 'Subject Name' is used several times.  The certificate has a subject field that contains a name, but it does nt have a Subject Name field.  Please reword.

In Section 18, second paragraph, the IESG approval of [I-D.housley-stir-enhance-rfc8226] required the addition of a SHOULD NOT statement:

   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.

It seems that a SHOULD NOT statement should appear here as well.

In Section 18.1, please reference draft-ietf-stir-enhance-rfc8226 (not draft-housley-stir-enhance-rfc8226).


> On Jul 29, 2021, at 3:19 PM, Russ Housley <> wrote:
> As we discussed on the IETF 111 session today, significant changes were made to address concerns that were raised during the second WGLC.
> This note begins a third WGLC for draft-ietf-stir-passport-rcd-12 (PASSporT Extension for Rich Call Data).  See
> Please send reviews to the STIR mail list by the end of day 19 August 2021.
> Russ and Robert
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list