Subject: [stir] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-passport-10: (with COMMENT)

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 12:10:57 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-passport-10: 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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport/

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

"The claim value for the "tn" claim is the telephone number and MUST
   be canonicalized according to the procedures specified in
   [I-D.ietf-stir-rfc4474bis] Section 8.3."
This indicated that's section 8.3 of ietf-stir-rfc4474bis belongs in this
doc. Is there are reason why it is in ietf-stir-rfc4474bis instead?