Shepherd writeup
rfc8816-07

(1) The STIR WG requests publishing draft-ietf-stir-oob as an Informational
    RFC. 

(2) 

Technical Summary

   The PASSporT format defines a token that can be carried by signaling
   protocols, including SIP, to cryptographically attest the identify of
   callers.  Not all telephone calls use Internet signaling protocols,
   however, and some calls use them for only part of their signaling
   path.  This document describes use cases that require the delivery of
   PASSporT objects outside of the signaling path, and defines
   architectures and semantics to provide this functionality.

Working Group Summary

  This document began at the earliest stages of the STIR WG, though many
  participants felt it was a distraction from the core work of the WG and
  asked that focused effort start after the primary in-band work was completed.

Document Quality

  This document has received review from a significant subset of the STIR
  working group.

Personnel

  The document shepherd is Robert Sparks.
  The responsible area director is Adam Roach.

(3) This version of the document is ready for IESG review. The shepherd 
    reviewed the document several times in its formation, and did a detailed
    review during the WG second last call.

(4) The document has received attention from several working group participants.
    The depth and breadth of the reviews to date are sufficient for moving the
    document to IESG review.

(5) This document does not require review from specific specialized review teams.

(6) The shepherd has no concerns or issues with this document.

(7) The authors have responded that they are not aware of any needed IPR
    disclosures for previous versions (up through -03). They have been asked
    to reconfirm for the anticipated -05.

(8) There have been no IPR disclosures made against any version of this document.
(9) The consensus to publish this document as an Informational RFC is strong.
    It has received review from a subset of the WG, with others acknowledging
    its existence, and not objecting to its publication.

(10) There has been no threat of appeal raised with respect to this document.

(11) This document passed the shepherd's nits and checklist review. idnits 
     complains about some strings (telephone numbers) that it misidentifies
     as IP addresses.

(12) The document contains no sections requiring formal team reviews.

(13) All references within this document been identified as informative.

(14) There are no normative references to be unstable. There are three
     informative references to drafts. One is ~9 years expired, and is
     not expected to be updated.

(15) There are no normative downreferences from this document.

(16) This document does not attempt to change the status of any existing RFCs.

(17) This document requires no actions from IANA.

(17) This document requires no actions from IANA.

(19) This document contains no sections written in a formal language. It does
     contain some example PASSporT objects. The shepherd did not verify these
     were computed correctly. Unlike the protocol specification documents, 
     these examples are motivational only. There isn't sufficient information
     in the document to validate them (keys are not given). They are present 
     to demonstrate where a given set of bits show up in various messages.

Back