Subject: [stir] Shepherd comments: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-03

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 13:51:08 -0500

While performing the shepherd writeup, I notice the following things:

1) The document has no security considerations section. The document is 
so straightforward, I can understand (but shake my head at) the group 
missing that so far. The document really needs to say something here. 
While I don't expect it to be long, "introduces no new considerations" 
is clearly not right.

2) In section 9.2, say "Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT) Extensions 
registry" instead of "PASSporT Types registry" (to match what's at 
https://www.iana.org/assignments/passport/passport.xhtml .

3) Can (should?) we provide a stable link in the reference for ATIS-1000074?

RjS

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:07:07 -0500

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the review and comments, responses below [MB].

Regards,
Mary

> While I don't expect it to be long, "introduces no new considerations"
[MB] Yeah, an interesting oversight.  We'll put something together and
submit a new version.   [/MB]

> https://www.iana.org/assignments/passport/passport.xhtml .
[MB] Yep. [/MB]

> 3) Can (should?) we provide a stable link in the reference for
[MB] Yes, we can do that and probably should.  We should probably include
the link on the SIP Forum website as the ATIS website is likely to prompt
for payment. [/MB]