[stir] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-rph-03: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 19 April 2018 01:44 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
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 EB91D126C89; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-stir-rph@ietf.org, Russ Housley <rhousley@vigilsec.com>, stir-chairs@ietf.org, rhousley@vigilsec.com, stir@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.78.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152410229195.28672.4848182467373812893.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 18:44:51 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/oPquRqozpb-F_gyo6TpbM4NA7D4>
Subject: [stir] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-rph-03: (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, 19 Apr 2018 01:44:52 -0000

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-rph-03: No Objection

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:


I support Ben's discuss.

Thank you for working with the secdir reviewer to address those
comments; I think it will really improve the document.

In a similar vein, I wonder if this document would be easier to read
if it used less formal description terms for protocol elements that
are currently referred to by using the actual protocol element (with
quotes around the name).  For example, "SIP resource priority
header" instead of "'Resource-Priority' header field", or "priority
indicator" instead of "'namespace"."priority value"'.

I'm a little confused why the new registry created in Section 6.2 is
tied to the "resource priority header" (rph) name, when the discussion
in Section 5 has some potential envisioned use cases that are
broader than resource priority.

As Ben notes, there are some stale references.  Please double-check
the referred section numbers as well; in particular "Section 10.1 of
[4474bis]" does not exist in the only February-2017 verions of that

Section 7.2 uses "authority" in a couple of different senses; it
might be easier on the reader to refer to the authority (protocol
participant) as being "authoritative for the content of [stuff] that
it signs".