Re: [stir] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-02

Hi!

Support moving this one along, and I think these are all minor.

0) I thought the security considerations was missing something about compromise leading to misuse of network resources, but it’s the 2nd paragraph of s1. That shows you which section I read first ;) Might be worth repeating that s1 blurb in s8 or at least referring to it from s8? Maybe:

  The security consideration enumerated in
  Section 1 and the security considerations discussed
  in [RFC8224], Section 12, are applicable.

1) I hit the nits button (also out of habit) there are a lot unused references and they can be deleted:

== Unused Reference: 'RFC3261' is defined on line 275, but no explicit
   reference was found in the text

== Unused Reference: 'RFC8226' is defined on line 305, but no explicit
   reference was found in the text

== Unused Reference: 'RFC7340' is defined on line 322, but no explicit
   reference was found in the text

== Unused Reference: 'RFC7375' is defined on line 327, but no explicit
   reference was found in the text

== Unused Reference: 'RFC8126' is defined on line 331, but no explicit
   reference was found in the text

2) Do the examples in s3.1, 3.2, and s4 match the order required in s5? I.e., shouldn’t the examples be as follow to be in lexicographic order:

s3.1:
{
 "dest":{["uri":"urn:service:sos"]},
 "iat":1443208345,
 "orig":{"tn":"12155551212"},
 "rph":{"ESorig":["esnet,x"]}
}

s3.2:
{
 "dest":{["tn":"12155551212"]},
 "iat":1443208345,
 "orig":{"tn":"12155551213"},
 "rph":{"EScallback":["esnet,x"]}
}

s4:
{
 "dest":{["tn":"12155551212"]},
 "iat":1443208345,
 "orig":{"tn":"12155551213"},
 "rph":{"EScallback":["esnet,x"]},
 "sph":"psap-callback"
}

3) In s3.2, there’s a reference to "r-values”. What’s that?

4) Should this “should only” be a SHOULD:

 The value of the "sph" claim key SHOULD be "psap-callback”
 to match the SIP Priority header field value for authorized
 emergency services callbacks.

4) In s5, s/order,/order:

5) In s6, should the compact form for ‘rph’ PASSPORTS be NOT RECOMMENDED, i.e.,

OLD:

  The use of the compact form of PASSporT is not specified in this
  document or recommended for 'rph' PASSporTs.

NEW:

  The use of the compact form of PASSporT is not specified in this
  document and it is NOT RECOMMENDED for 'rph' PASSporTs.

6) 2119 and 8174 should be normative references.

Cheers,

spt

> On Jul 31, 2020, at 11:29, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> This is the STIR WG Last Call for "Assertion Values for a Resource Priority Header Claim and a SIP Priority Header Claim in Support of Emergency Services Networks” <draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services-02>.  Please review the document and send your comments to the STIR WG mail list by 22 August 2020.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-rph-emergency-services/
> 
> Thanks,
> Robert & Russ
> 
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> stir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir