Subject: Re: [stir] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-stir-rph-01

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:14:43 -0500

I have reviewed the postings on this WG Last Call.  Many people spoke for publication, and no one spoke against publication.  A few editorial errors were pointed out.  Will the authors please correct those.  Once the updated I-D is posted, we will ask the IESG for publication.

In addition to the comments on the mail list, IDnits reports that  7 lines in the document are too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4 characters in excess of 72.  Please correct them.

IDnits also reports that three RFCs are included in the references section, but they are not  references in the body of the document.  Please remove these references, or add a reference in the document body.

I think that the Abstract can be shortened considerably.  I suggest:

   This document extends the STIR PASSporT specification to allow the
   inclusion of cryptographically-signed assertions of authorization
   for values that might appear in the SIP 'Resource-Priority' header
   field, which is used for communications resource prioritization.

Russ

> On Oct 23, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This is the STIR WG Last Call for "PASSporT Extension for Resource-Priority Authorization” <draft-ietf-stri-rph-01>.  Please review the document and send your comments to the list by 6 November 2017. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Russ & Robert

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:37:09 -0500

Please speak up now if you have any disagreement with this write-up.
The sections with *** will be updated as the authors respond.

Russ

= = = = = = = = =

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Standards track RFC is requested.  Yes, this appears on the
  title page of the Internet-Draft.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

Working Group Summary

  The STIR WG reached consensus, and there is strong support for
  publication of this document.

Document Quality

  Several people have expressed interest in implementing this
  specification.

Personnel

  Russ Housley is the Document Shepherd.
  Adam Roach is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

   *** Asked authors to fix.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns at all.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  No additional review is needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No concerns at all.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

   *** Asked authors to confirm.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures have been submitted against this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it 
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?   

  The STIR WG reached consensus, and there is strong support for
  publication of this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) 

  No one has threatened to appeal or expressed discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

   *** Asked authors to fix.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No additional formal review is needed for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes, informative and normative references appear is separate
  sections in the document.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  Two normative references are in the RFC Editor queue.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in 
the Last Call procedure. 

  There are no downrefs.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No, publication of this document will not change the status of
  any other documents.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The IANA considerations appear to be complete.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new IANA registries are created.  Two entries are added to
  existing IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  None is needed for this document.

---

From: Subir Das <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 13:14:08 -0500

Hi Russ,
Thanks for your review and comments. Your suggested abstract looks good to
me.
We will address  other editorial comments and submit another version of the
draft.

-Subir

On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:14 PM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I have reviewed the postings on this WG Last Call.  Many people spoke for
> publication, and no one spoke against publication.  A few editorial errors
> were pointed out.  Will the authors please correct those.  Once the updated
> I-D is posted, we will ask the IESG for publication.
>
> In addition to the comments on the mail list, IDnits reports that  7 lines
> in the document are too long lines in the document, the longest one being 4
> characters in excess of 72.  Please correct them.
>
> IDnits also reports that three RFCs are included in the references
> section, but they are not  references in the body of the document.  Please
> remove these references, or add a reference in the document body.
>
> > This is the STIR WG Last Call for "PASSporT Extension for
> Resource-Priority Authorization” <draft-ietf-stri-rph-01>.  Please review
> the document and send your comments to the list by 6 November 2017.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Russ & Robert
>
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir
>