Personal Assertion Token (PaSSporT) Extension for Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs (SHAKEN)
draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-08
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-05-13
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2019-04-23
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2019-04-22
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2019-03-28
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2019-03-27
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2019-03-27
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2019-03-26
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2019-03-25
|
08 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2019-03-25
|
08 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2019-03-25
|
08 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2019-03-25
|
08 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2019-03-25
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2019-03-25
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2019-03-25
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2019-03-25
|
08 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2019-03-25
|
08 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2019-03-10
|
08 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-08.txt |
2019-03-10
|
08 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-03-10
|
08 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes |
2019-03-10
|
08 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-09
|
07 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] Jon and I talked offline and came up with some text that I believe is mutually acceptable. In the interest of moving this … [Ballot comment] Jon and I talked offline and came up with some text that I believe is mutually acceptable. In the interest of moving this forward, I am clearing my DISCUSS and trusting the AD to follow through with the new version. |
2019-03-09
|
07 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Eric Rescorla has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-02-21
|
07 | Adam Roach | Waiting for resolution of DISCUSS issue -- see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/VFBgBL86NRxyM9BGmOf_pkVWVk0 |
2019-02-02
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thank you for resolving the copyright issues. [Original ballot COMMENT section preserved below] I am interested in seeing the resolution of discussion on … [Ballot comment] Thank you for resolving the copyright issues. [Original ballot COMMENT section preserved below] I am interested in seeing the resolution of discussion on Ekr's Discuss, but will stick to that thread for such discussion. Section 4 Am I reading this properly that the difference between 'A' and 'B' is that in 'B' we don't have any information about the device that's originating the call, just the identity of the user/customer? |
2019-02-02
|
07 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2019-01-31
|
07 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2019-01-31
|
07 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-07.txt |
2019-01-31
|
07 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-01-31
|
07 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes |
2019-01-31
|
07 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-12-21
|
06 | Adam Roach | Will need changes to address Eric Rescorla's DISCUSS point and Benjamin Kaduk's DISCUSS point. |
2018-12-21
|
06 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-12-06
|
06 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-12-06
|
06 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2018-12-06
|
06 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-06.txt |
2018-12-06
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-12-06
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes |
2018-12-06
|
06 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-21
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2018-11-21
|
05 | Ignas Bagdonas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ignas Bagdonas |
2018-11-21
|
05 | Martin Vigoureux | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Vigoureux |
2018-11-20
|
05 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2018-11-20
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] I echo Ben's "Yes assuming the Discusses can be resolved". It's about time we provided this capability! I did have a couple of … [Ballot comment] I echo Ben's "Yes assuming the Discusses can be resolved". It's about time we provided this capability! I did have a couple of comments you might want to consider, along with anything else that pops up during IESG Evaluation. "SHAKEN" isn't spelled out in either the title or Abstract - that would probably help almost all the readers of this document ... I did find it odd that This indicator allows for both identifying the service provider that is vouching for the call as well as clearly indicating what information the service provider is attesting to. The 'attest' claim can be one of the following three values: 'A', 'B', or 'C' as defined in [ATIS-1000074]. used "A", "B", and "C", instead of something like "F"(ull), "P"(artial), and "G"(ateway), because if you discover a need for a fourth value, it's not clear whether anyone would be assuming "A" < "B" < "C" ordering in their code, that would break if the fourth value was naturally between "A" and "B". If you're sure no one but Spencer would be so dumb, that's a fine response ... |
2018-11-20
|
05 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2018-11-20
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I am balloting "Yes" because I want to see the anti-robocalling framework get deployed sooner than later. But I share some of the … [Ballot comment] I am balloting "Yes" because I want to see the anti-robocalling framework get deployed sooner than later. But I share some of the privacy concerns that have been raised by others. I will follow that conversation on the thread resulting from Ekr's DISCUSS. Some additional comments: *** Substantive Comments *** §3: "The second claim is a unique origination identifier that should be used by the service provider..." Was that "should" meant as a "SHOULD"? §4 - Some of the terminology in the definitions of the attestation types seems vague to me. Does "authenticated relationship with the initiator" mean the same as "has authenticated the originator of the call"? Does "established a verified association with the calling party telephone number" mean the same as "verified that the calling party has the right to use the calling identity"? (The ATIS doc has more detailed explanations, which makes me wonder if it wouldn't have been better to just reference those definitions.) - The type "C" description includes "Has no relationship with the initiator of the call (e.g., international gateways)" in the list of MUST conditions. Is it the intent that an operator can only use a Type C attestation if it does not have that relationship? That is, an operator that did have a relationship with the initiator of the call is not allowed to use a type C attestation to avoid disclosure of the relationship? (How would one test that?) §10: - As Alissa mentioned, the fact that similar information that might be gleaned from originid is carried in SIP is not very convincing. It's historically been common for operators to use SBCs to hide things like Record-Route and Via. (and I presume History-Info). - Is originid required? Could an operator who had privacy concerns simply choose not to include it? (Maybe that operator has sufficient internal records to hunt down bad actors.) - The ATIS doc talks about using the originid in type B attestations to track "reputation". I assume this sort of tracking could be done by parties other than the attesting operator? If so, I think that's worth some discussion. *** Editorial Comments *** - Abstract: Please expand SHAKEN in the abstract. §1: Please expand VoIP, TDM, and SS7 |
2018-11-20
|
05 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2018-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot comment] I support Eric's DISCUSS. In addition to points made by Benjamin in that thread, I think if this document is going to say … [Ballot comment] I support Eric's DISCUSS. In addition to points made by Benjamin in that thread, I think if this document is going to say that threats introduced by origids "already existed in SIP," it also needs to talk about expectations for usage of origids in cases were existing SIP features to support anonymous calling are in use. Presumably callers who enable such features may also not expect their calling patterns to be linkable. |
2018-11-20
|
05 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2018-11-19
|
05 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2018-11-19
|
05 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2018-11-19
|
05 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2018-11-19
|
05 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2018-11-18
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] A nontrivial amount of text in this document appears to have been taken from https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/download.php/32237/ATIS-1000074.pdf which notes that "No part of this publication … [Ballot discuss] A nontrivial amount of text in this document appears to have been taken from https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/download.php/32237/ATIS-1000074.pdf which notes that "No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher." Do we have prior written permission to duplicate such text? |
2018-11-18
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] I am interested in seeing the resolution of discussion on Ekr's Discuss, but will stick to that thread for such discussion. Section 4 … [Ballot comment] I am interested in seeing the resolution of discussion on Ekr's Discuss, but will stick to that thread for such discussion. Section 4 Am I reading this properly that the difference between 'A' and 'B' is that in 'B' we don't have any information about the device that's originating the call, just the identity of the user/customer? |
2018-11-18
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2018-11-17
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot discuss] Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5207 I would like to discuss the privacy properties of origids. As I read this text, it … [Ballot discuss] Rich version of this review at: https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D5207 I would like to discuss the privacy properties of origids. As I read this text, it does not actually require them to be unlinkable or that it not be possible to determine whether two ids represent the same person behind the origid generator, and I believe it should do so. Practically implementing that may require an ID that is longer than a UUID. |
2018-11-17
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot comment] > > This document extends PASSporT, which is a token object that conveys > cryptographically-signed information about the participants … [Ballot comment] > > This document extends PASSporT, which is a token object that conveys > cryptographically-signed information about the participants involved > in communications. The extension is defined, corresponding to the > SHAKEN specification, to provide both a specific set of levels-of- > confidence to the correctness of the originating identity for a SIP Nit: confidence of or confidence in > in communications. The extension is defined, corresponding to the > SHAKEN specification, to provide both a specific set of levels-of- > confidence to the correctness of the originating identity for a SIP > based Communication Service Provider (CSP) telephone network > originated call as well as an identifier that allows the CSP to > uniquely identify the origination of the call within its network. Nit: originator S 1. > need to be accounted for where PASSporT signatures may represent > either direct or indirect call origination scenarios. The SHAKEN > [ATIS-1000074] specification defines levels of attestation of the > origination of the call as well as an origination identifier that can > help create a unique association with the origination of calls from > various parts of the VoIP or TDM telephone network. This document I can't read this. What is the association between? S 2. > capitals, as shown here. > > In addition, the following terms are used in this document: > > o Verified association: is typically defined as an authenticated > relationship with a device that initiated a call, for example, a relationship between the call and the device? S 4. > > o Has a direct authenticated relationship with the initiator of the > call and can identify the customer associated with the initiator. > > o Has NOT established a verified association with the calling party > telephone number being used for the call. For those who aren't; voice experts, can you give an example of when this would happen? S 10. > integrity protection and non-repudiation properties as the base > claims in the PASSporT. > > 10. Privacy Considerations > > As detailed in [RFC3261] Section 26, SIP messages inherently carry Thanks for including this section. |
2018-11-17
|
05 | Eric Rescorla | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Eric Rescorla |
2018-11-17
|
05 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2018-11-09
|
05 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2018-11-07
|
05 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2018-11-06
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2018-11-21 |
2018-11-06
|
05 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2018-11-06
|
05 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2018-11-06
|
05 | Adam Roach | Ballot has been issued |
2018-11-06
|
05 | Adam Roach | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Adam Roach |
2018-11-06
|
05 | Adam Roach | Created "Approve" ballot |
2018-11-06
|
05 | Adam Roach | Ballot writeup was changed |
2018-11-06
|
05 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2018-11-06
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2018-11-06
|
05 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-05.txt |
2018-11-06
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-11-06
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes |
2018-11-06
|
05 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-11-04
|
04 | Adam Roach | Chris plans to produce an -05 version of the document based on feedback received so far. The document will go onto an IESG agenda as … Chris plans to produce an -05 version of the document based on feedback received so far. The document will go onto an IESG agenda as soon as the new version comes out. |
2018-11-04
|
04 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2018-11-02
|
04 | Takeshi Takahashi | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Takeshi Takahashi. Sent review to list. |
2018-11-02
|
04 | Francesca Palombini | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Francesca Palombini. Sent review to list. |
2018-11-02
|
04 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2018-10-31
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2018-10-31
|
04 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has completed its review of draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-04. 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-shaken-04. 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 registrations are to be made Claim Name: attest Claim Description: Attestation level as defined in SHAKEN framework Change Controller: IESG Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Claim Name: origid Claim Description: Originating Identifier as defined in SHAKEN Change Controller: IESG Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] We understand that the three-week mailing list review for these registrations commenced on October 18th and should be completed by November 8th. We will ask the experts whether they can be approved more quickly. 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/ a single new registration is to be made: ppt value: shaken Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] As this document is requesting registration in a Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. As the designated expert is an author, we have sent a question to Adam Roach concerning this review. The IANA Functions Operator understands that these are the only actions required upon document approval. 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 |
2018-10-26
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2018-10-26
|
04 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Victor Kuarsingh |
2018-10-25
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Takeshi Takahashi |
2018-10-25
|
04 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Takeshi Takahashi |
2018-10-25
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francesca Palombini |
2018-10-25
|
04 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Francesca Palombini |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-11-02): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: adam@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, Robert Sparks , … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2018-11-02): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: adam@nostrum.com, draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken@ietf.org, stir@ietf.org, Robert Sparks , stir-chairs@ietf.org, rjsparks@nostrum.com Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (PASSporT SHAKEN Extension (SHAKEN)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited WG (stir) to consider the following document: - 'PASSporT SHAKEN Extension (SHAKEN)' 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 2018-11-02. 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 This document extends PASSporT, which is a token object that conveys cryptographically-signed information about the participants involved in communications, to include information defined as part of the SHAKEN specification from ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions) and the SIP Forum IP-NNI Joint Task Force. These extensions provide a level of confidence in the correctness of the originating identity for a telephone network that has communications coming from both STIR participating originating communications as well as communications that does not include STIR information. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Adam Roach | Last call was requested |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Adam Roach | Last call announcement was generated |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Adam Roach | Ballot approval text was generated |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Adam Roach | Ballot writeup was generated |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Adam Roach | AD review posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/HxVSCLPGfSgwFuvqLkWSVNI0PtQ |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2018-10-19
|
04 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2018-10-18
|
04 | Robert Sparks | > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > Changes are expected over time. This … > As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document > Shepherd Write-Up. > Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. > (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? This document standardizes a use of PASSporTs, exercising its extension mechanisms. Its intended status is Proposed Standard. > (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 PASSporT, which is a token object that conveys cryptographically-signed information about the participants involved in communications, to include information defined as part of the SHAKEN specification from ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions) and the SIP Forum IP-NNI Joint Task Force. These extensions provide a level of confidence in the correctness of the originating identity for a telephone network that has communications coming from both STIR participating originating communications as well as communications that does not include STIR information. Working Group Summary This document is a product of the STIR working group. Document Quality There are implementations of this document. JWT claims registration review was requested 18 Oct 2018 Personnel Robert Sparks 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 shepherd reviewed this document, ran id-nits, and visually inspected the example PASSporTs provided. > (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or > breadth of the reviews that have been performed? This document began WGLC in April 2018. Feedback from the group was minimal. (The document is short and straightforward.) One suggestion to use the compact form of PASSporT with these claims was discussed at the STIR session at IETF 102. The suggestion was rejected (in offline conversations), and the document was updated to explicitly state that the use of the compact form of PASSporT is not specified. The security considerations section was added to the document very late in the process, but again, the document is short and straightforward, and the security considerations are not surprising. > (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. JWT claims registration review was requested 18 Oct 2018. See > (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. There are no such concerns outstanding, > (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. Each author has so confirmed. > (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? > If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR > disclosures. There are no such disclosures filed. > (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 document is straighforward and has the consensus of the working group, even if feedback has been minimal. > (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 such indications have been made. > (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. None. > (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review > criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. See Item (5) > (13) Have all references within this document been identified as > either normative or informative? Yes > (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? No such references exist, but the IESG should note the normative reference to the the ATIS/SIP Forum NNI Task Group document at [ATIS-10000074]. The group believes this normative reference is appropriate. > (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. No such references exist. > (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. This document does not attempt to change the status of any other document. > (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 section registers entries in two existing registries. The registrations are straightforward, and the instructions are clear and 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. This document creates no 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. No such formal language sections exist. The shepherd visually inspected the example PASSporT objects |
2018-10-18
|
04 | Robert Sparks | Responsible AD changed to Adam Roach |
2018-10-18
|
04 | Robert Sparks | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2018-10-18
|
04 | Robert Sparks | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2018-10-18
|
04 | Robert Sparks | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2018-10-18
|
04 | Robert Sparks | Notification list changed to Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> |
2018-10-18
|
04 | Robert Sparks | Document shepherd changed to Robert Sparks |
2018-10-18
|
04 | Robert Sparks | Changed document writeup |
2018-10-17
|
04 | Mary Barnes | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-04.txt |
2018-10-17
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-10-17
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes |
2018-10-17
|
04 | Mary Barnes | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-24
|
03 | Robert Sparks | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2018-09-24
|
03 | Robert Sparks | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2018-09-24
|
03 | Robert Sparks | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2018-09-20
|
03 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-03.txt |
2018-09-20
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-09-20
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes |
2018-09-20
|
03 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-09-20
|
02 | (System) | Document has expired |
2018-06-27
|
02 | Russ Housley | Added to session: IETF-102: stir Wed-1520 |
2018-04-29
|
02 | Russ Housley | STIR WG Last Call for "PASSporT SHAKEN Extension" |
2018-04-29
|
02 | Russ Housley | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2018-03-19
|
02 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-02.txt |
2018-03-19
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-19
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes |
2018-03-19
|
02 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-03-09
|
01 | Russ Housley | Added to session: IETF-101: stir Thu-0930 |
2018-03-05
|
01 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-01.txt |
2018-03-05
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2018-03-05
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Chris Wendt , Mary Barnes |
2018-03-05
|
01 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |
2018-01-18
|
00 | Robert Sparks | This document now replaces draft-wendt-stir-passport-shaken instead of None |
2018-01-18
|
00 | Chris Wendt | New version available: draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-00.txt |
2018-01-18
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2018-01-17
|
00 | Chris Wendt | Set submitter to "Chris Wendt ", replaces to draft-wendt-stir-passport-shaken and sent approval email to group chairs: stir-chairs@ietf.org |
2018-01-17
|
00 | Chris Wendt | Uploaded new revision |