Skip to main content

Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT) Extension for Diverted Calls
draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-09

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2021-02-12
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2020-10-26
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2020-09-28
09 (System) Removed unintended duplicate opsdir lc review
2020-09-28
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2020-09-28
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from IANA
2020-09-28
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2020-09-28
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2020-07-31
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to IANA from EDIT
2020-07-28
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2020-07-24
09 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2020-07-24
09 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2020-07-24
09 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2020-07-24
09 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2020-07-24
09 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2020-07-24
09 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2020-07-24
09 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2020-07-24
09 Cindy Morgan Ballot approval text was generated
2020-07-24
09 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2020-07-23
09 Roman Danyliw [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT items.
2020-07-23
09 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] Position for Roman Danyliw has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2020-07-17
09 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot comment]
Thank you for addressing my Discuss (and Comment) points!
2020-07-17
09 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2020-07-15
09 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Experts State changed to Expert Reviews OK from Issues identified
2020-07-15
09 Sabrina Tanamal IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2020-07-13
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2020-07-13
09 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2020-07-13
09 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-09.txt
2020-07-13
09 (System) New version approved
2020-07-13
09 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Peterson
2020-07-13
09 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision
2020-04-09
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2020-04-08
08 Martin Vigoureux [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux
2020-04-08
08 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2020-04-08
08 Robert Wilton [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton
2020-04-08
08 Éric Vyncke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke
2020-04-07
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from Version Changed - Review Needed
2020-04-07
08 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot discuss]
I support Roman's Discuss.  Isn't there a straightforward translation of
the "div" procedures to the nested "div-o" chain?  Why would that not be …
[Ballot discuss]
I support Roman's Discuss.  Isn't there a straightforward translation of
the "div" procedures to the nested "div-o" chain?  Why would that not be
applicable?

I had two other points for discussion:

(1) IANA seems unhappy (the expert review identified issues).  What's the
plan to address them?

(2) The following text from the Security Considerations seems inconsistent
to me:

                                                          However,
  including this information about forwarding is at the discretion of
  the retargeting entity, so if there is a requirement to keep the
  original called number confidential, no PASSporT should be created
  for that retargeting - the only consequence will be that downstream
  entities will be unable to correlate an incoming call with the
  original PASSporT without access to some prior knowledge of the
  policies that could have caused the retargeting.

I don't understand this -- if the idea is to keep the original called
number confidential, wouldn't this necessitate *not giving the original
PASSporT to the called entity*, since the original PASSporT includes the
original call destination?  Without the original PASSporT at all, of
course it can't be correlated to an incoming call...  (Even in the OOB
case, would the post-retargeting called entity even be able to
retrieve/decrypt the original PASSporT?)  Is this intended to only apply
to some non-SIP case?
2020-04-07
08 Benjamin Kaduk
[Ballot comment]
While it looks like the main change in the -08 is intended to address
the secdir reviewer's comment, it would be nice to …
[Ballot comment]
While it looks like the main change in the -08 is intended to address
the secdir reviewer's comment, it would be nice to respond to the review
and mention the new text.

Do we need to say something about whitespace being added to examples for
readability?

Section 1

Is there an intended mnemonic for the "opt" element?  ("Original
passport"?)

Do "div-o" PASSporTs necessarily carry both "div" and "opt", or is "opt"
intended to be able to stand alone in a "div-o" PASSporT?

Section 3

  canonical form of the "dest" identifiier is not changed during

nit: s/identifiier/identifier/

  A "div" PASSporT claims set is populated with elements drawn from the
  PASSporT(s) received for a call by the retargeting entity: at a high

When would there be multiple received PASSporTs that all are input to
the same "div" PASSporT?
Also, the later discussion that indicates only a small number of
claims/extensions are copied from the original PASSporT (and that "iat"
might change!) suggests that perhaps the "is populated with" language
could be tweaked.

  level, the original identifier for the called party in the "dest"
  object will become the "div" claim in the new PASSporT.  If the

This "will become" language seems a bit problematic when combined with
the definition in Section 8 of an "hi" element within the "div" claim,
which is not part of the "original identifier for the called party".

  The combined full form PASSporT (with a signature covered by the
  ES256 keys given in Appendix A) would look as follows:

    eyJhbGciOiJFUzI1NiIsInBwdCI6ImRpdiIsInR5cCI6InBhc3Nwb3J0IiwieDV1Ij \
    oiaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZXhhbXBsZS5jb20vY2VydC5jZXIifQ.eyJkZXN0Ijp7InRuI \
    jpbIjEyMTU1NTUxMjE0Il19LCJkaXYiOnsidG4iOiIxMjE1NTU1NTEyMTMifSwiaWF \
    0IjoxNDQzMjA4MzQ1LCJvcmlnIjp7InRuIjoiMTIxNTU1NTEyMTIifX0.xBHWipDEE \
    J8a6TsdX6xUXAnblsFiGUiAxwLiv0HLC9IICj6eG9jQd6WzeSSjHRBwxmChHhVIiMT \
    SqIlk3yCNkg

(The decoded claims set is sorted, though the previous display-form
example was in a different order.)

Section 4

  This section specifies SIP-specific usage for the "div" PASSporT type
  and its handling in the SIP Identity header field "ppt" parameter
  value.  Other protocols using PASSporT may define behavior specific
  to their use of the "div" claim.

Is the last line supposed to be "claim" or "PASSporT type"?

Section 4.1

  The retargeting entity SHOULD act as a verification service and
  validate the existing Identity header field value(s) in the request
  before proceeding; in some high-volume environments, it may instead
  put that burden of validating the chain entirely on the terminating
  verification service.  As the authentication service will be adding a

Is this intended to be the only allowed exception to the SHOULD?  (Can
we phrase it as a MUST instead, e.g., "except when it is know that the
terminating verification service will do so, the retargeting entity MUST
act as a verification service"?)

  PASSporT.  Note that this effectively creates multiple chains of
  "div" PASSporTs in a single request, which complicates the procedures
  that need to be performed at verification services.

[ponders whether there should be more security considerations about
these added complications]

  not for "div" PASSporTs with earlier targets.  Ordinarily, the
  current target will be readily identifiable, as it will be in the
  last "div" PASSporT in each chain, and in SIP cases it will
  correspond to the Request-URI received by the retargeting entity.
  Moreover, the current target will be an identifier that the
  retargeting entity possess a credential to sign for, which may not be
  true for earlier targets.  Ultimately, on each retargeting, the
  number of PASSporTs added to a request will be equal to the number of
  non-"div" PASSporTs that do not share the same "orig" and "dest"
  object values.

We seem to be providing two or three descriptions of the number of new
"div" PASSporTs to be created, and it's hard to have full confidence
that all are guaranteed to produce identical results.  Is it possible to
clarify a single definitive procedure?

Section 4.2

  In order to validate a SIP request using the "div" PASSporT type, a
  verification service needs to inspect all of the valid Identity
  header field values associated with a request, as an Identity header
  field value containing "div" necessarily refers to an earlier
  PASSporT already in the message.  [...]

(refers to one or more earlier PASSporT, no?)

                                                    Deployments that
  change the original To header field value to conceal the original
  destination of the call from the ultimate recipient should note that
  the original destination of a call may be preserved in the innermost
  PASSporT.  [...]

Should this also be noted in the security considerations?

Section 5

  This specification defines a "div-o" PASSporT type that uses the
  "div" claim element in conjunction with the opt (Section 6) PASSporT
  claim element.  As is the case with "div" PASSporT type, a "div-o"

nit: any reason why we refer to "div" as a "claim element" but "opt"
(with no quotes!) as a "PASSporT claim element"?

Section 6

  The presence of an original PASSporT claims set element, designated
  as "opt", signifies that a PASSporT encapsulates another entire
  PASSporT within it, typically a PASSporT that was transformed in some
  way to create the current PASSporT.  Relying parties may need to
  consult the encapsulated PASSporT in order to validate the identity
  of a caller. "opt" as defined in this specification may be used by
  future PASSporT extensions as well as in conjunction with "div-o".

All the more reason for this document to specify the "div-o" usage's
validation procedures!

Section 7

  an impractical number of combinations.  But in very complex call
  routing scenarios, attestation of source identity would only add
  limited value anyway.

I'm not sure what point this last sentence is trying to make.  "Yes this
is complicated, but no one would do it anyway"?  That doesn't really
support the case for retargeting over redirecting...

  STIR-aware SIP intermediaries that redirect requests MAY therefore
  convey one or more PASSporTs in the backwards direction within
  Identity header fields.  These redirecting entities will act as
  authentication services for "div" as described in Section 4.1.  This
  document consequently updates [RFC8224] to permit carrying Identity
  header fields in SIP 300-class responses.  It is left to the
  originating user agent to determine which Identity header fields
  should be copied from the 3xx into any new requests resulting from
  the redirection, if any: use of these Identity header fields by
  entities receiving a 3xx response is OPTIONAL.

Is the idea that making this use optional obviates any need for a
negotiation mechanism where the originating user agent indicates support
for receiving PASSporTs in the 300-class response?

Section 10.1.2

  Claim Description: Encapsulated JSON token

Is it an encapsulated "JSON token" or "PASSporT [JSON Web Token]"?

Section 11

  However, as there may be unforeseen circumstances where the
  revelation of service logic to the called party poses a privacy risk,
  implementers and users of this or similar diversion-tracking
  techniques should understand the trade-off.

Don't the 300-class redirections also involve some revelation of
information to the calling party?  I think that could be worth
mentioning (though it's not specific to the PASSporT case).

  Furthermore, it is a general privacy risk of identity mechanisms
  overall that they do not interface well with anonymization services;
  the interaction of STIR with anonymization services is detailed in
  [RFC8224] Section 11.  Any forwarding services that acts as an
  anonymizing proxy may not be able to provide a secure chain of
  retargeting due to the obfuscation of the originating identity.

Isn't there also a risk that an anonymizing proxy might not know to
remove all the (information contained in the) PASSporTs, thus
inadvertently leaking identity information?

Section 12

  risk arises at the discretion of the retargeting domain: simply using
  3xx response redirections rather than retargeting (with supply a
  "div" per Section 7) mitigates the potential impact.  Under unusual

nit: grammar is weird around "with supply a 'div'"

Appendix A

Thanks for including the keys needed to validate the examples!
(Alas, I don't have a JWT or JOSE library handy, so I didn't do so...)
2020-04-07
08 Benjamin Kaduk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk
2020-04-07
08 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot 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”.  …
[Ballot 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.
2020-04-07
08 Roman Danyliw
[Ballot 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" …
[Ballot 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/
2020-04-07
08 Roman Danyliw [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw
2020-04-07
08 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2020-04-07
08 Warren Kumari [Ballot Position Update] Position for Warren Kumari has been changed to No Objection from No Record
2020-04-07
08 Warren Kumari [Ballot comment]
Thanks to Linda Dunbar for the OpsDir review.
2020-04-07
08 Warren Kumari Ballot comment text updated for Warren Kumari
2020-04-06
08 Barry Leiba [Ballot comment]
Thanks for a well-written document, Jon.
2020-04-06
08 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2020-04-06
08 Alissa Cooper [Ballot comment]
Please respond to the Gen-ART review.
2020-04-06
08 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2020-04-06
08 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund
2020-04-03
08 Erik Kline
[Ballot comment]
[nits]

S3

* Reference to 8224 section 8 might consider pointing all the way to 8.3 (vis.
  RFC 8225 section 5.2.1.1), perhaps? …
[Ballot comment]
[nits]

S3

* Reference to 8224 section 8 might consider pointing all the way to 8.3 (vis.
  RFC 8225 section 5.2.1.1), perhaps?

S4.1

* s/possess a credential/possesses a credential/ (I think)

S4.2

* Perhaps start a new paragraph at "A verification service parses..."?

* Does "blind transfer" have a reference to describe it?  It probably doesn't
  need one for the intended audience...I was just curious.
2020-04-03
08 Erik Kline [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Erik Kline
2020-04-01
08 Martin Duke [Ballot comment]
Though dense, this was readable by someone with no background in the subject.

Only one nit: in section 3, s/identifier/identifier.
2020-04-01
08 Martin Duke [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke
2020-03-30
08 Amy Vezza Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-04-09
2020-03-28
08 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2020-03-28
08 Murray Kucherawy Ballot has been issued
2020-03-28
08 Murray Kucherawy [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy
2020-03-28
08 Murray Kucherawy Created "Approve" ballot
2020-03-28
08 Murray Kucherawy IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup
2020-03-28
08 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was changed
2020-03-28
08 Murray Kucherawy Ballot writeup was changed
2020-03-25
08 Amy Vezza Shepherding AD changed to Murray Kucherawy
2020-03-09
08 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2020-03-09
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK
2020-03-09
08 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-08.txt
2020-03-09
08 (System) New version approved
2020-03-09
08 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Peterson
2020-03-09
08 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision
2020-01-09
07 Pete Resnick Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Pete Resnick. Sent review to list.
2019-12-09
07 Adam Roach Waiting for author follow-up to last-call directorate reviews.
2019-12-09
07 Adam Roach IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup
2019-12-03
07 Amanda Baber PASSporT registrations approved. JWT Claims experts would like the issues described in jwt-reg-review mailing list review resolved before registration.
2019-12-03
07 Amanda Baber IANA Experts State changed to Issues identified
2019-12-02
07 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2019-12-02
07 Linda Dunbar Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Linda Dunbar. Sent review to list.
2019-12-02
07 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2019-11-30
07 Phillip Hallam-Baker Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Phillip Hallam-Baker. Sent review to list.
2019-11-30
07 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed
2019-11-30
07 Amanda Baber
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let …
(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

The IANA Functions Operator understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which we must complete.

First, in the JSON Web Token Claims registry on the JSON Web Token (JWT) registry page located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/jwt/

two new claims are to be registered:

Claim Name: div
Claim Description: New Target of a Call
Change Controller: IESG
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

Claim Name: opt
Claim Description: Encapsulated JSON token
Change Controller: IESG
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we have sent a reminder to the designated experts that a review request is pending on the jwt-reg-review@ietf.org mailing list. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Second, in the Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT) Extensions registry on the Personal Assertion Token (PASSporT) registry page located at

https://www.iana.org/assignments/passport/

two new extensions will be registered:

ppt value: div
Reference: [ RFC-to-be, Section 3]

ppt value: div-o
Reference: [ RFC-to-be, Section 5]

As this section of the document also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required registry, we have initiated the required expert review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

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 meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

Thank you,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist
2019-11-20
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker
2019-11-20
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Phillip Hallam-Baker
2019-11-20
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick
2019-11-20
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick
2019-11-20
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2019-11-20
07 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Linda Dunbar
2019-11-18
07 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2019-11-18
07 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-12-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: adam@nostrum.com, Russ Housley , housley@vigilsec.com, draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-12-02):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: adam@nostrum.com, Russ Housley , housley@vigilsec.com, draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, stir-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (PASSporT Extension for Diverted Calls) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited
WG (stir) to consider the following document: - 'PASSporT Extension for
Diverted Calls'
  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
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-12-02. 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


  PASSporT is specified in RFC 8225 to convey cryptographically-signed
  information about the people involved in personal communications.
  This document extends PASSporT to include an indication that a call
  has been diverted from its original destination to a new one.  This
  information can greatly improve the decisions made by verification
  services in call forwarding scenarios.  Also specified here is an
  encapsulation mechanism for nesting a PASSporT within another
  PASSporT that assists relying parties in some diversion scenarios.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.




2019-11-18
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2019-11-18
07 Adam Roach Last call was requested
2019-11-18
07 Adam Roach Last call announcement was generated
2019-11-18
07 Adam Roach Ballot approval text was generated
2019-11-18
07 Adam Roach Ballot writeup was generated
2019-11-18
07 Adam Roach This version is ready for IETF last call.
2019-11-18
07 Adam Roach IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested::AD Followup
2019-11-04
07 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2019-11-04
07 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-07.txt
2019-11-04
07 (System) New version approved
2019-11-04
07 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Peterson
2019-11-04
07 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision
2019-10-14
06 Adam Roach See AD review at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/Vx13C0G6XR9Nbrgg-4aX0BgQ-zs
2019-10-14
06 Adam Roach IESG state changed to Publication Requested::Revised I-D Needed from Publication Requested
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley Added to session: IETF-105: stir  Mon-1000
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Standards track RFC is requested.  Yes, this appears on the
  title page of the Internet-Draft.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document extends the STIR PASSporT specification to allow the
  inclusion of cryptographically-signed assertions to indicate that a
  call has been diverted from its original destination to a new one.

Working Group Summary

  The STIR WG reached consensus, and there is strong support for
  publication of this document.

Document Quality

  Several people have expressed interest in implementing this
  specification.

Personnel

  Russ Housley is the Document Shepherd.
  Adam Roach is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The document shepherd did a complete review of -05, and all items
  of concern were corrected.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns at all.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  The JWT claim registration was requested on 12 April 2019:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jwt-reg-review/1r37p6v5mOBJlmvhu0bndbZQEOo

  No additional review is needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No concerns at all.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  The author has confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR
  disclosures that need to be submitted.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures have been submitted against this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The STIR WG reached consensus, and there is strong support for
  publication of this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No one has threatened to appeal or expressed discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  IDnits raises two warnings.  The first warning is about the use of
  [RFCThis] in the IANA Considerations section.  This will be resolved
  by IANA and the RFC Editor as part of publication.  The second warning
  is about the 'Updates:' line on the title page.  It should say:

    Updates: 8224 (if approved)

  That is, the "RFC" should not be included.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No additional formal review is needed for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes, informative and normative references appear is separate
  sections in the document.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  The [RFCThis] reference will progress at roughly the same time.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  There are no downrefs.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No, publication of this document will not change the status of
  any other documents.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The IANA considerations appear to be complete.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new IANA registries are created.  Some entries are added to
  existing IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  None is needed for this document.
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley Responsible AD changed to Adam Roach
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

  Standards track RFC is requested.  Yes, this appears on the
  title page of the Internet-Draft.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document extends the STIR PASSporT specification to allow the
  inclusion of cryptographically-signed assertions to indicate that a
  call has been diverted from its original destination to a new one.

Working Group Summary

  The STIR WG reached consensus, and there is strong support for
  publication of this document.

Document Quality

  Several people have expressed interest in implementing this
  specification.

Personnel

  Russ Housley is the Document Shepherd.
  Adam Roach is the Responsible Area Director.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

  The document shepherd did a complete review of -05, and all items
  of concern were corrected.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

  No concerns at all.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

  The JWT claim registration was requested on 12 April 2019:
  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jwt-reg-review/1r37p6v5mOBJlmvhu0bndbZQEOo

  No additional review is needed.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

  No concerns at all.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

  The author has confirmed that he is unaware of any IPR
  disclosures that need to be submitted.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

  No IPR disclosures have been submitted against this document.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

  The STIR WG reached consensus, and there is strong support for
  publication of this document.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No one has threatened to appeal or expressed discontent.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

  IDnits raises two warnings.  The first warning is about the use of
  [RFCThis] in the IANA Considerations section.  This will be resolved
  by IANA and the RFC Editor as part of publication.  The second warning
  is about the 'Updates:' line on the title page.  It should say:

    Updates: 8224 (if approved)

  That is, the "RFC" should not be included.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No additional formal review is needed for this document.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

  Yes, informative and normative references appear is separate
  sections in the document.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

  The [RFCThis] reference will progress at roughly the same time.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

  There are no downrefs.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

  No, publication of this document will not change the status of
  any other documents.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

  The IANA considerations appear to be complete.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

  No new IANA registries are created.  Some entries are added to
  existing IANA registries.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

  None is needed for this document.
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley Notification list changed to Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley Document shepherd changed to Russ Housley
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG cleared.
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2019-07-12
06 Russ Housley Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2019-07-08
06 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-06.txt
2019-07-08
06 (System) New version approved
2019-07-08
06 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Peterson
2019-07-08
06 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision
2019-07-02
05 Robert Sparks Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG set.
2019-07-02
05 Robert Sparks IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2019-03-31
05 Russ Housley Second WG Last Call for this document since significant changes were made.
2019-03-31
05 Russ Housley Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2019-03-31
05 Russ Housley IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2019-03-26
05 Robert Sparks Added to session: IETF-104: stir  Fri-0900
2019-02-19
05 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-05.txt
2019-02-19
05 (System) New version approved
2019-02-19
05 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Peterson
2019-02-19
05 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision
2019-01-30
04 Robert Sparks Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2019-01-30
04 Robert Sparks IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call
2018-11-06
04 Robert Sparks IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2018-10-22
04 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-04.txt
2018-10-22
04 (System) New version approved
2018-10-22
04 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Peterson
2018-10-22
04 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision
2018-07-02
03 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-03.txt
2018-07-02
03 (System) New version approved
2018-07-02
03 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Peterson , stir-chairs@ietf.org
2018-07-02
03 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision
2018-06-27
02 Russ Housley Added to session: IETF-102: stir  Wed-1520
2018-03-09
02 Russ Housley Added to session: IETF-101: stir  Thu-0930
2018-03-05
02 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-02.txt
2018-03-05
02 (System) New version approved
2018-03-05
02 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Peterson
2018-03-05
02 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision
2017-10-30
01 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-01.txt
2017-10-30
01 (System) New version approved
2017-10-30
01 (System) Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Jon Peterson
2017-10-30
01 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision
2017-07-16
00 Robert Sparks Added to session: IETF-99: stir  Wed-1330
2017-07-05
00 Robert Sparks This document now replaces draft-peterson-passport-divert instead of None
2017-07-03
00 Jon Peterson New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-divert-00.txt
2017-07-03
00 (System) New version approved
2017-07-03
00 Jon Peterson Request for posting confirmation emailed  to submitter and authors: Jon Peterson
2017-07-03
00 Jon Peterson Uploaded new revision