Subject: [sipcore] Magnus Westerlund's No Record on draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 01:40:17 -0800

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam-04: No Record

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Transfering my discuss as I step down. Zahed will take this over.

Discuss:
Section 7:

Which ABNF is used here, please provide a reference. I also very much would
appreciate that the normative reference for "iana-token" was provided in this
section rather than 8.3.

Comments:

Section 8.3:

So I am slightly worried that there are no recommendations on the criteria the
expert should have for accepting or rejecting an registration request. Well
there is always the possibility for appealing a registration request if it gets
rejected. Considering that these labels are very much social constructs they
will be culture dependent and what may be acceptable in one culture may not be
in another. I would expect that being very liberal is the only way forward
here. At the same time allowing many overlapping labels could enable attacks on
the system.  Was these aspects discussed in the WG?