[stir] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-identity-header-errors-handling-07: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-identity-header-errors-handling-07: 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/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-identity-header-errors-handling/



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

Thanks for this short, readable, and to the point document.

I did find a couple of nits. In both cases I leave it to you to decide if a
change is called for, no need to reply.

1. In Section 5, I had trouble with this sentence:

"As implied and defined in [RFC8224], error codes associated with STIR targeted
at authentication services that produced a specific identity header field
represent a single error occurring with the verification and processing of that
identity header field."

I'm willing to believe that for someone expert in STIR, SIP, et al, that
sentence might be parsable into something that makes sense. It defied me,
though, so I mention it in case you want to re-word it.

2. In Section 6, isn't this a comma splice and it should really be two
sentences?

"As mentioned previously, the potential use of multiple Reason header fields
defined in [RFC3326] is updated in [I-D.ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons] allowing
multiple Reason header fields with the same protocol value, for this
specification "STIR" should be used for any STIR error defined in [RFC8224] or
future specifications."