PASSporT: Personal Assertion Token
draft-ietf-stir-passport-11
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-09-01
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-07-31
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-07-17
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from AUTH |
2017-06-23
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH from EDIT |
2017-06-21
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2017-06-21
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2017-06-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-06-12
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2017-06-06
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2017-06-06
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2017-05-26
|
11 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2017-05-26
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2017-05-26
|
11 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2017-05-26
|
11 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2017-05-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2017-05-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2017-05-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2017-05-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2017-05-26
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2017-05-25
|
11 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2017-05-25
|
11 | Adam Roach | RFC Editor Note was changed |
2017-05-25
|
11 | Adam Roach | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2017-05-25
|
11 | Adam Roach | RFC Editor Note for ballot was generated |
2017-05-03
|
11 | Alissa Cooper | Shepherding AD changed to Adam Roach |
2017-02-12
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for handling my DISCUSS about deterministic signing. |
2017-02-12
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2017-02-09
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2017-02-09
|
11 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-11.txt |
2017-02-09
|
11 | (System) | New version approved |
2017-02-09
|
11 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jon Peterson" , "Chris Wendt" |
2017-02-09
|
11 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2016-12-27
|
10 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2016-11-10
|
10 | Tero Kivinen | Closed request for Last Call review by SECDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-11-07
|
10 | Robert Sparks | Added to session: IETF-97: stir Wed-0930 |
2016-11-03
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2016-11-03
|
10 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Bert Wijnen. |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] Deterministic ECDSA (RFC6979) gets rid of a significant weakness with ECDSA. IIRC when JOSE was done there was a feeling that … [Ballot discuss] Deterministic ECDSA (RFC6979) gets rid of a significant weakness with ECDSA. IIRC when JOSE was done there was a feeling that adding a MUST or SHOULD for that was tricky due to lack of support in libraries. When we recently re-checked for COSE, the answer was that today, it's ok to have that as a MUST or SHOULD. (If some kind of FIPS-140 stuff precludes a MUST, then a "SHOULD unless you're sad enough to be stuck having to pay lip lipservice to FIPS-140" clause might be right. So the DISCUSS point here is: given the real-world demonstrated weakness inherent in the need for an RNG in ECDSA why didn't the WG choose to at least RECOMMEND deterministic ECDSA? (Or better, make it a MUST.) If the answer is: "we thought about it [ref] and decided to not require deterministic" then I'll clear. But even if the WG did consider it a couple of years ago, the situation may have changed so a quick re-think might be worthwhile. |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] Nit: In Sec 5.1.1: "As defined the "iat" should be set to the date and time of issuance of the JWT and … [Ballot comment] Nit: In Sec 5.1.1: "As defined the "iat" should be set to the date and time of issuance of the JWT and MUST the origination of the personal communications." I assume that should be "MUST be" ? |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thanks for a very well written example of how to use some of the JOSE work. In section 9.1 there's another nit that … [Ballot comment] Thanks for a very well written example of how to use some of the JOSE work. In section 9.1 there's another nit that was not identified (that I can see) by other reviewers. This section demonstrate the deterministic JSON s/demonstrate/demonstrates/ |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-11-02
|
10 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot comment] Editorial feedback from Bert Wijnen, our OPS-DIR reviewer: While I was at it, I found someNits and/or typos: The abstract states: … [Ballot comment] Editorial feedback from Bert Wijnen, our OPS-DIR reviewer: While I was at it, I found someNits and/or typos: The abstract states: The PASSporT token is cryptographically signed to protect the integrity of the identity the originator and to verify the assertion of the identity information at the destination. s/the identity the originator/the identity of the originator/ Or so I think. section 5.1.1 states: As defined the "iat" should be set to the date and time of issuance of the JWT and MUST the origination of the personal communications. The time value should be of the format defined in [RFC7519] Section 2 NumericDate. Is that a correct sentence? or is the a verb missing around "the JWT and MUST the origination" ??? Section 5.2.2 5.2.2. "mky" - Media Key claim Why such a cryptic "mky". Why not "mkey" ?? I can live with it. I just wonder why we make it more cryptic than needed. Section 10.2 2nd bullet In many applications, the end user represented by the asserted identity represents and signer may not be one in the same I do/did not know the term "one in the same". I do know "one and the same". I guess other people may have the same knowledge as I do (as non native English speaker) Bert |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot comment] "The claim value for the "tn" claim is the telephone number and MUST be canonicalized according to the procedures specified in … [Ballot 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? |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot comment] This is generally a well written and detailed document. Thank you. I have some minor comments: 5.1.1. "iat" - Issued At claim … [Ballot comment] This is generally a well written and detailed document. Thank you. I have some minor comments: 5.1.1. "iat" - Issued At claim The JSON claim MUST include the "iat" [RFC7519] Section 4.1.6 defined claim Issued At. As defined the "iat" should be set to the date and time of issuance of the JWT and MUST the origination I think a verb is missing between "MUST" and "the origination" of the personal communications. 5.2.2. "mky" - Media Key claim 2. Sort the lines based on the UTF8 encoding UTF-8 needs a normative reference (RFC 3629). of the concatenation of the "alg" and "dig" claim value strings. 7.1. Example Compact form PASSporT Token eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6InBhc3Nwb3J0IiwieDV1IjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9jZXJ0LmV4YW1wbGUub3JnL3Bhc3Nwb3J0LmNlciJ9 I decoded this and it looks reasonable: {"alg":"ES256","typ":"passport","x5u":"https://cert.example.org/passport.cer"} . eyJkZXN0Ijp7InVyaSI6WyJzaXA6YWxpY2VAZXhhbXBsZS5jb20iXX0sImlhdCI 6IjE0NDMyMDgzNDUiLCJvcmlnIjp7InRuIjoiMTIxNTU1NTEyMTIifX0 OpenSSL produced the following: {"dest":{"uri":["sip:alice@example.com"]},"iat": this looks like a truncated value. Is something wrong with the value or is this an OpenSSL bug? |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Robert Sparks | 1. Summary draft-ietf-stir-passport defines protocol and is intended for publication as Proposed Standard. From the abstract: This document defines a method for creating and … 1. Summary draft-ietf-stir-passport defines protocol and is intended for publication as Proposed Standard. From the abstract: This document defines a method for creating and validating a token that cryptographically verifies an originating identity, or more generally a URI or telephone number representing the originator of personal communications. The PASSporT token is cryptographically signed to protect the integrity of the identity the originator and to verify the assertion of the identity information at the destination. The cryptographic signature is defined with the intention that it can confidently verify the originating persona even when the signature is sent to the destination party over an insecure channel. PASSporT is particularly useful for many personal communications applications over IP networks and other multi-hop interconnection scenarios where the originating and destination parties may not have a direct trusted relationship. This document is a component of a toolset for combating robocalling. In the US, the FCC is applying significant pressure to the industry to deter robocalling (with deadlines in the last part of 2016). An industry-led strike force is moving towards deployment of a solution that uses that toolset. The ATIS/SIP Forum IPNNI Task Force's SHAKEN solution relies on the toolset defined by STIR and profiles it for deployment in the North American market. 2. Review and Consensus This document has undergone heavy review. It was introduced into the suite of STIR documents as part of aligning with the SHAKEN effort. Recent versions of this document were implemented and tested at the SIP Forum SIPit test event in September. Feedback from that event informed significant improvements to both the protocol and the prose in the document. Those implementations are tracking the changes made in the latest versions. The document suite has been through three working group last calls, the third of which was abbreviated to one week. The first last call stimulated significant discussion, some of which was heated. This document requires review on the jwt-reg-review and jose-reg-review lists. Review requests were sent to those lists 18Oct. Feedback from those reviews has been incorporated in the draft. Jim Schaad, in particular, provided a careful review and many improvements. The document registers a media type, requiring media-type review. That review was requested 18Oct. Feedback from the review has been incorporated into the document. 3. Intellectual Property The authors have each confirmed that any IPR they are aware of has been disclosed. There are currently no disclosures registered for this document. 4. Other Points There are no normative downreferences from this document. The document uses no formal languages, but does contain several examples. These have been carefully reviewed by implementors. The document requires several actions from IANA. They are concretely described in the document text. |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot has been issued |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-11-01
|
10 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-11-01
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2016-10-31
|
10 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-10-31
|
10 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Services Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-09.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. Upon approval of this document, we understand that there are three registry actions to complete. First, in the application subregistry of the Media Types registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/ a single, new media type will be added as follows: Name: passport Template: [ TBD-at-registration ] Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, in the JSON Web Token Claims subregistry in the JSON Web Token (JWT) registry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/ three, new Web Token Claims are to be registered as follows: Claim Name: orig Clain Description: Originating Identity String Change Controller: IESG Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Claim Name: dest Clain Description: Destination Identity String Change Controller: IESG Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Claim Name: mky Clain Description: Media Key Fingerprint String Change Controller: IESG Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this is an Expert Review (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required review via a separate request. Approval by the expert is required for registration. Third, in the JSON Web Signature and Encryption Header Parameters subregistry of the JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE) regsitry located at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/jose/ a single new parameter is to be registered as follows: Header Parameter Name: ppt Header Parameter Description: PASSporT extension identifier Header Parameter Usage Location: JWS Change Controller: IESG Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Once again, as this is an Expert Review (see RFC 5226) registry, we will initiate the required review via a separate request. Approval by the expert is required for registration. We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Services Specialist PTI |
2016-10-31
|
10 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-10.txt |
2016-10-31
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-31
|
10 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jon Peterson" , "Chris Wendt" |
2016-10-31
|
10 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2016-10-27
|
09 | Roni Even | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Roni Even. |
2016-10-22
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2016-10-22
|
09 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Bert Wijnen |
2016-10-20
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2016-10-20
|
09 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Roni Even |
2016-10-20
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Wouters |
2016-10-20
|
09 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Paul Wouters |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: alissa@cooperw.in, draft-ietf-stir-passport@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, "Robert Sparks" , stir-chairs@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: alissa@cooperw.in, draft-ietf-stir-passport@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, "Robert Sparks" , stir-chairs@ietf.org, rjsparks@nostrum.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited WG (stir) to consider the following document: - 'Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-11-01. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines a method for creating and validating a token that cryptographically verifies an originating identity, or more generally a URI or telephone number representing the originator of personal communications. The PASSporT token is cryptographically signed to protect the integrity of the identity the originator and to verify the assertion of the identity information at the destination. The cryptographic signature is defined with the intention that it can confidently verify the originating persona even when the signature is sent to the destination party over an insecure channel. PASSporT is particularly useful for many personal communications applications over IP networks and other multi-hop interconnection scenarios where the originating and destination parties may not have a direct trusted relationship. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Last call was requested |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Alissa Cooper | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Robert Sparks | 1. Summary draft-ietf-stir-passport defines protocol and is intended for publication as Proposed Standard. From the abstract: This document defines a method for creating and … 1. Summary draft-ietf-stir-passport defines protocol and is intended for publication as Proposed Standard. From the abstract: This document defines a method for creating and validating a token that cryptographically verifies an originating identity, or more generally a URI or telephone number representing the originator of personal communications. The PASSporT token is cryptographically signed to protect the integrity of the identity the originator and to verify the assertion of the identity information at the destination. The cryptographic signature is defined with the intention that it can confidently verify the originating persona even when the signature is sent to the destination party over an insecure channel. PASSporT is particularly useful for many personal communications applications over IP networks and other multi-hop interconnection scenarios where the originating and destination parties may not have a direct trusted relationship. This document is a component of a toolset for combating robocalling. In the US, the FCC is applying significant pressure to the industry to deter robocalling (with deadlines in the last part of 2016). An industry-led strike force is moving towards deployment of a solution that uses that toolset. The ATIS/SIP Forum IPNNI Task Force's SHAKEN solution relies on the toolset defined by STIR and profiles it for deployment in the North American market. 2. Review and Consensus This document has undergone heavy review. It was introduced into the suite of STIR documents as part of aligning with the SHAKEN effort. Recent versions of this document were implemented and tested at the SIP Forum SIPit test event in September. Feedback from that event informed significant improvements to both the protocol and the prose in the document. Those implementations are tracking the changes made in the latest versions. The document suite has been through three working group last calls, the third of which was abbreviated to one week. The first last call stimulated significant discussion, some of which was heated. This document requires review on the jwt-reg-review and jose-reg-review lists. Early feedback from Jim Schaad is already reflected in the document. Review requests were sent to those lists 18Oct. The document registers a media type, requiring media-type review. That review was requested 18Oct. 3. Intellectual Property The authors have each confirmed that any IPR they are aware of has been disclosed. There are currently no disclosures registered for this document. 4. Other Points There are no normative downreferences from this document. The document uses no formal languages, but does contain several examples. These have been carefully reviewed by implementors. The document requires several actions from IANA. They are concretely described in the document text. |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Robert Sparks | Responsible AD changed to Alissa Cooper |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Robert Sparks | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Robert Sparks | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Robert Sparks | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Robert Sparks | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Robert Sparks | Changed document writeup |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Robert Sparks | Notification list changed to "Robert Sparks" <rjsparks@nostrum.com> |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Robert Sparks | Document shepherd changed to Robert Sparks |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-09.txt |
2016-10-18
|
09 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-18
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jon Peterson" , "Chris Wendt" |
2016-10-18
|
09 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2016-10-18
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-10-18
|
08 | Alissa Cooper | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-11-03 |
2016-09-29
|
08 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-08.txt |
2016-09-29
|
08 | Chris Wendt | New version approved |
2016-09-29
|
08 | Chris Wendt | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: "Jon Peterson" , "Chris Wendt" |
2016-09-29
|
08 | (System) | Uploaded new revision |
2016-09-09
|
07 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-07.txt |
2016-08-22
|
06 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-06.txt |
2016-07-22
|
05 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-05.txt |
2016-07-22
|
04 | Russ Housley | A two week WG Last Call for the PASSporT document started on 13 July 2016, and it will end on 27 July 2016. Ideally major … A two week WG Last Call for the PASSporT document started on 13 July 2016, and it will end on 27 July 2016. Ideally major concerns will be raised quickly so that they can be tackled during IETF 96. |
2016-07-22
|
04 | Russ Housley | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-07-08
|
04 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-04.txt |
2016-07-07
|
03 | Robert Sparks | Added to session: IETF-96: stir Tue-1400 |
2016-06-13
|
03 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-03.txt |
2016-05-27
|
02 | Russ Housley | Added to session: interim-2016-stir-1 |
2016-05-24
|
02 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-02.txt |
2016-03-23
|
01 | Naveen Khan | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-01.txt |
2016-03-21
|
00 | Robert Sparks | Added to session: IETF-95: stir Tue-1740 |
2016-02-22
|
00 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-00.txt |