[stir] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-messaging-06: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-messaging-06: Discuss

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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-messaging/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon-07
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document.

Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point, some non-blocking COMMENT points
(but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education).

Please note that Wassim Haddad is the Internet directorate reviewer (at my
request) and you may want to consider this int-dir reviews as well when Wassim
will complete the review (no need to wait for it though):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-messaging/reviewrequest/16757/

Special thanks to Ben Campbell for the shepherd's detailed write-up including
the WG consensus *and* the justification of the intended status.

I hope that this review helps to improve the document,

Regards,

-éric

## DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:

### Section 3.2

Very easy to fix but is there a registry for the leading strings 'sha256', ...
? How can it be extended ? What is the exact syntax ?

Is there a potential negotiation of support hash algorithms between the parties
? What is the expected error code when the receiver does not support this algo ?


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


## COMMENTS

### Unused reference

If the idnits
https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-stir-messaging-06.txt
can be trusted, then please fix all unused references.

### Using SIP for messaging

I must admit my ignorance on this topic, but I would assume that most of the
messaging system (from Skype to WhatsApp and others) do not rely on SIP, so
this I-D may not be that useful or do I miss something ?

### Usefulness of "msgi"

Please educate me (probably obvious to you) about the usefulness of "msgi", is
the SIP header integrity protected while the body is not ? Then, this would
make perfect sense.

### Section 1
```
   As telephone services
   are increasingly migrating onto the Internet and using Voice over IP
   (VoIP) protocols such as SIP [RFC3261]
```
Perhaps naively, I would have assumed that in 2022 the migration/transition is
mostly done. Should this text be refreshed ?

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments