Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-stir-cert-delegation-03
Hi Ines, Thanks for the read on this one (and sorry for the lengthy RTT). A few responses. Minor issues: 1-Introduction Section: "..., including various forms of robocalling, voicemail hacking, and swatting..." --> should a reference to RFC7375 be added here? Sure, I added that. 2- It would be nice to add in Terminology section: - delegation: the concept of delegation and its levels are defined in RFC8226. - definition for "legitimate spoofing". I understand that the draft explain it with an example. Okay, done. 3- It would be nice to add references to concepts, e.g. cA boolean --> cA boolean [rfc5280#section-4.2.1.9] Happy to add an RFC5280 ref there, though there's one in the next sentence as well. "x5u" link -> "x5u" (X.509 URL) [RFC7515#section-4.1.5] link Above, the document already clarified that it is the '"x5u" field of a PASSporT", so I think this is okay, 4- Section 4: It would be nice to add graphics explaining the process. E.g. can be used as a model the images displayed in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/download.php/47134/IPNNI-2019-00043R000.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!rykrS3CcDoztD6v_PvocTkvXAvMRZMTO7KnP7CeC3RnAgZWfa0oHl8mQ3IFCCQ$ or https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://niccstandards.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ND1522V1.1.1.pdf__;!!N14HnBHF!rykrS3CcDoztD6v_PvocTkvXAvMRZMTO7KnP7CeC3RnAgZWfa0oHl8nJTLQKBw$ Not sure about adding new pictures at this point; or at least, I think the basic idea should be clear from the text by itself. 5- Section 5:"Authentication service behavior for delegate certificates is little changed from [RFC8224] STIR behavior" --> It is not clear to me what are the little changes. Additionally, how you quantify little/big changes?, maybe something like?: "Authentication service behavior varies from STIR behavior [RFC8224] as follows:" Okay, I can do that. 6- Section 8.1: Should the picture displayed in https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/104/slides/slides-104-stir-certificate-delegation-00--Slide__;!!N14HnBHF!rykrS3CcDoztD6v_PvocTkvXAvMRZMTO7KnP7CeC3RnAgZWfa0oHl8lONN1XSA$ 5 be added here? Really would rather not do new pictures at this point. 7- Security Consideration section: should a reference to RFC7375 be added here? Added. Nits/editorial comments: 8- Expand the first time: JWS -> JSON Web Signature (JWS) Done. Thanks! Jon Peterson Neustar, Inc. Thank you for this document, Ines. ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07
Thanks for these notes, Pete. I incorporated these fixes into the -08 (but apparently neglected to write and say so at the time). Jon Peterson Neustar, Inc. Document: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07 Reviewer: Pete Resnick Review Date: 2020-01-09 IETF LC End Date: 2019-12-02 IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat Summary: Ready with Nits While I found the document (and particularly section 4) very technically dense, I think the detail will help implementers tremendously. Nothing other than a few editorial issues. Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Section 3, paragraph 1: Note that a new PASSporT is only necessary when the canonical form of the "dest" identifier (per the canonicalization procedures in [RFC8224] Section 8) changes due to this retargeting. If the canonical form of the "dest" identifiier is not changed during retargeting, then a new PASSporT with a "div" claim MUST NOT be produced. Seems to me that these two sentences should be in their own paragraph. It took me a second to figure out that the following sentence was not related to these. Section 4: ...Other using protocols of PASSporT Don't you mean "Other protocols using PASSporT"? Section 4.2, paragraph 2: I think you mean "necessarily", not "necessary" ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
[Gen-art] RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt
I believe that the RFC-Editor note you request here was already in the tracker at the time that this document was balloted for an IESG call. Jon Peterson NeuStar, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; gen-art@ietf.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Peterson, Jon; Shockey, Richard; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FW: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt This draft has not been revised since it was reviewed in August. It is still basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. An RFC Editor Note should be used to correct the bad section reference (see below), and the IESG should ensure that this correction is communicated to IANA, as it affects the registration that IANA will perform. Thanks, --David David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 [EMAIL PROTECTED]Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 -Original Message- From: Black, David Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:08 AM To: Rohan Mahy; 'gen-art@ietf.org' Cc: Black, David; 'Jon Peterson'; 'Richard Shockey'; 'Patrik Faltstrom'; 'Alexander Mayrhofer'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-enum-calendar-service-03.txt Reviewer: David Black Review Date: 24 August 2007 IETF LC End Date: 6 September Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Comments: This is a relatively straightforward registration of an ENUM service, and the draft does a good job of explaining the service that is being registered. I found one minor nit in the service registration (Section 2): Security considerations: See section 3. That should be See section 4. as section 3 contains examples and section 4 is the Security Considerations. idnits 2.04.14 did not find any issues. Thanks, --David David L. Black, Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 [EMAIL PROTECTED]Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 ___ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
