Subject: [stir] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-15: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alexey Melnikov" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 10:26:44 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-15: 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-rfc4474bis/

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

This is a well written document (despite giving too many deployment
choices in some areas). I have a short list of small issues/nits:

In Section 4: ABNF for the signed-identity-digest allows empty string? Is
this intentional? If not, maybe use "1*" in front?

In Section 5.1: are you missing an empty line between the header and the
SDP payload?

In Section 6.2.2: is it customary in SIP to use the human readable
portion of error responses?

In Section 7.4: HTTP URIs need a reference.

In Section 8.4: URI-ID from RFC 6125 can be used for the subdomain case
as well?

---

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:14:45 +0000

Um, right. Yeah we'll fix that.

>In Section 5.1: are you missing an empty line between the header and the

We can insert one.

>portion of error responses?

We're discussing that in the Ben thread, but

>In Section 7.4: HTTP URIs need a reference.

Well... we meant here to use the URLs in RFC2585 (specifically in section
3, the "HTTP Conventions"), that RFC is ref'd at the end of the sentence.
Is that adequate?

>In Section 8.4: URI-ID from RFC 6125 can be used for the subdomain case

Hadn't considered it. I'm not aware how much uptake that has with SIP
services, but we could look into it a bit.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 14:33:44 +0000

Hi Jon,

> Um, right. Yeah we'll fix that.

Good.

> >In Section 5.1: are you missing an empty line between the header and the

Great, thanks.

> We're discussing that in the Ben thread, but

You haven't finished the sentence...

> 3, the "HTTP Conventions"), that RFC is ref'd at the end of the sentence.

I suggest including both, as RFC 2585 is not even referencing RFC 2616.

> services, but we could look into it a bit.

This is similar to adding telephone numbers to certificates: CAs will
have to be updated to handle them. But yes, I am not going to push for
this to be adopted, even though I personally think it is a good idea.