Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-04

Request Review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2018-11-02
Requested 2018-10-19
Authors Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes
I-D last updated 2018-11-02
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Francesca Palombini (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Takeshi Takahashi (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Takeshi Takahashi
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken by Security Area Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 08)
Result Ready
Completed 2018-11-02
I do not have any particular concerns on the Security Considerations section.
As mentioned in the section, the proposed extension will not pose any
particular threats to the base specification.

Having said that, I have minor comments and clarification questions as an
individual who has read this document without prior knowledge of this topic.

1. In the abstract,

The sentence "from ATIS .... Joint Task Force" will not be neceaary.
For those who are familiar with SHAKEN specification, this sentence is obvious.
For those who are not familiar with SHAKEN, this sentence will not provide any
information that may facilitate the understanding of the overview of the draft.
In either cases, the sentence will not be necessary.

"to include information defined as part of ..." had better be refined further.
I believe the readers wish to know the details (incl., types) of the
information instead of where the specification was once defined.

2. In the abstract and/or introduction,

STIR should be spelled out. I guess it is Secure Telephony Identity Revisited.

3. Terminology

I feel that you use the terms "claims" and "indicators" for pointing to the
same objects. If that's the case, I hope you could choose to use only one of

Example of the use of two terminologies.
1. In the introduction, you have the sentence "This document specifies these
indicators...". 2. In the introduction, you have the sentence "there are two
additional claims..." 3. The title of section 4 is "Passport attest claim". and
so on.

4. In section 5 "PASSporT origid claim",

There is a sentence "There will likely be best practices documents that more
precisely guide it's usage in real deployments". If you have such a document
(including work-in-progress drafts), having a reference to this sentence will
be appreciated. If there is no reference, I do not think we need this sentence

5. orig and origid claims
If I understood correctly, both orig and origid represent identifies the same
objects (including service provider-initiated calls, customers, classes of
devices, etc.) In this case, if the object identified by orig and the one
identified by origid is not the same, how should the receiver interpret these

6. section 7
I am a bit confused. If the use of "attest" and "origid" is already defined
elsewhere, what does this document define? Is the document define the use of
those claims for some other protols (other than SIP)?

7. security consideration.

As mentioned in this section, the values of the new "attest" and "origid"
claims added by this extension are not used in the current validation step.
Then, do you think we should encourage people to have another step that
validates those claims added by this extension?

I would appreciate your answers on these issues.