Subject: [stir] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 12:35:26 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-08: Discuss

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-stir-passport-divert/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 5.  The text notes that procedures for the authentication and
verification service for the “div-o” claim will be “left to future work”.  Can
the rational for this deferral be explained.  Creating an interoperable
solution without this guidance seem challenging as it would be crucial guidance
on processing this newly introduced claim.

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

Please respond to Phillip Hallam-Baker SECDIR review (thanks Phillip!)

** Section 4.1.  Per “Provided that these PASSporTs share the same "orig" and
"dest" values, the retargeting entity's authentication service SHOULD generate
only one "div" PASSporT”, why not  MUST here?  What’s the corner case?

** Section 4.2.  Per “However, note that in some use cases, including  certain
ways that blind transfer is implemented, it is possible that an established
call will be retargeted long after it has originally been placed, and
verification services may want to allow a longer window for the freshness of
the innermost PASSporT if the call is transferred from a trusted party.”, are
there any recommendations or bounds that can be placed on the duration of this
“longer window of freshness”?

** Editorial Nit:

-- Section 3. Typo. s/identifiier/identifier/