[stir] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8224 (5715)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 01 May 2019 19:18 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFD012008D for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2019 12:18:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8p9naHjKfazG for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2019 12:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 366B2120021 for <stir@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2019 12:18:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 507B2B80E92; Wed, 1 May 2019 12:18:35 -0700 (PDT)
To: jon.peterson@neustar.biz, fluffy@cisco.com, ekr@rtfm.com, chris-ietf@chriswendt.net, barryleiba@computer.org, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, rjsparks@nostrum.com, housley@vigilsec.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: alexl@telnyx.com, stir@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190501191835.507B2B80E92@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2019 12:18:35 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/c0CMHunMm-h46bi8FNAjzRpWTq8>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 01 May 2019 12:48:44 -0700
Subject: [stir] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8224 (5715)
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Wed, 01 May 2019 19:18:50 -0000
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8224, "Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5715 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Alex Lee <alexl@telnyx.com> Section: 4.1 Original Text ------------- o Second, the JSON "dest" array MUST be populated. If the destination identity is a telephone number, then the array MUST be populated with a JSON object containing a "tn" element with a value set to the value of the quoted destination identity, a canonicalized telephone number (see Section 8.3). Otherwise, the array MUST be populated with a JSON object containing a "uri" element, set to the value of the addr-spec component of the To header field, which is the AoR to which the request is being sent, per the procedures in Section 8.5. Multiple JSON objects are permitted in "dest" for future compatibility reasons. ... The "orig" and "dest" arrays may contain identifiers of heterogeneous type; for example, the "orig" array might contain a "tn" claim, while the "dest" contains a "uri" claim. Also note that in some cases, the "dest" array may be populated with more than one value. This could, for example, occur when multiple "dest" identities are specified in a meshed conference. Defining how a SIP implementation would align multiple destination identities in PASSporT with such systems is left as a subject for future specifications. Corrected Text -------------- o Second, the JSON "dest" object MUST be populated. If the destination identity is a telephone number, then the object MUST contain a "tn" element with a value set to an array containing the value of the quoted destination identity, a canonicalized telephone number (see Section 8.3). Otherwise, the object MUST contain a "uri" element, set to an array containing the value of the addr-spec component of the To header field, which is the AoR to which the request is being sent, per the procedures in Section 8.5. Additional elements are permitted in "dest" for future compatibility reasons. ... The "orig" and "dest" objects may contain identifiers of heterogeneous type; for example, the "orig" object might contain a "tn" claim, while the "dest" contains a "uri" claim. Also note that in some cases, the "dest" object may be populated with more than one claim, and its claim value arrays may contain more than one value. This could, for example, occur when multiple "dest" identities are specified in a meshed conference. Defining how a SIP implementation would align multiple destination identities in PASSporT with such systems is left as a subject for future specifications. Notes ----- The description of the "dest" element does not match RFC8225 or the example that is provided in this section. The terminology is a bit less clear than in RFC8225 section 5.2.1, in that no differentiation is made between the top level "claims" and embedded "identity claims". The proposed correction does not address this lack of clarity, however. >From RFC8225 section 5.2.1: The "dest" claim is a JSON object with the claim name of "dest" and MUST have at least one identity claim object. The "dest" claim value is an array containing one or more identity claim JSON objects representing the destination identities of any type (currently "tn" or "uri"). If the "dest" claim value array contains both "tn" and "uri" claim names, the JSON object should list the "tn" array first and the "uri" array second. Within the "tn" and "uri" arrays, the identity strings should be put in lexicographical order, including the scheme-specific portion of the URI characters. (The above text might need correction as well, because it refers to the '"dest" claim value array'.) Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC8224 (draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-16) -------------------------------------- Title : Authenticated Identity Management in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Publication Date : February 2018 Author(s) : J. Peterson, C. Jennings, E. Rescorla, C. Wendt Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Secure Telephone Identity Revisited Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [stir] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8224 (5715) RFC Errata System