Subject:	Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport
Date:	Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:56:37 -0500
From:	Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
To:	jwt-reg-re= view@ietf.org
CC:	Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@gmail.com>, chris_we= ndt@cable.comcast.com <chris_wendt@cable.comcast.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>

11.2. JSON Web Token Claims Registration 11.2.1. Registry Contents Additions Requested o Claim Name: "orig" o Claim Description: Originating Identity String o Change Controller: IESG o Specification Document(s): Section 5.2.1 of [RFCThis] o Claim Name: "dest" o Claim Description: Destination Identity String o Change Controller: IESG o Specification Document(s): Section 5.2.1 of [RFCThis] o Claim Name: "mky" o Claim Description: Media Key Fingerprint String o Change Controller: IESG o Specification Document(s): Section 5.2.2 of [RFCThis]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Matt. = The message to jwt-reg-review had somehow gotten lumped together with the j= ose-reg-review one in such a way that'd I'd completely overlooked i= t. I don't know if maybe the same happened to the other 'experts= 9; so I'm including them and the jwt-reg-review address again in this m= essage.

Generally I think the draft-ietf-stir-passport claims = registrations look okay. A few comments follow. It'd be a nice courtesy= to maybe space and group section 11.2.1 like was done in https://tools.ietf.org/html/r= fc7519#section-10.1.2 but that's just a nit. I can't help but s= ee the similarity of "orig"/"dest" to "sub"/&= quot;aud" and wonder if more couldn't have been done to reuse the = existing claims. But having the specific syntax and semantics for PASSporT = is understandably nice too. If it were up to me, I'd use base64url enco= ding rather than hex for mky/dig as it is more space efficient and generall= y in line with how JWT/JOSE does things but that's just me. You can tak= e or leave those comments though at your choosing.

Hopefully = the other reviewers will see this message and we can move things forward. <= br>

=C2=A0=C2=A0

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:33 AM, Matt= Miller (mamille2) <mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:

Hello Brian,

Do you think you can review this JWT registration?

Thanks,

- m&m
Matt Miller (mobile)

On Oct 18, 2016 1:25 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:

Hi Matt -

Who should pick this one up? (Jim is taking care of the part that went t= o jose-reg-review).

We're up against some strong external pressure to get this document = suite published, so any nudging to bring this particular review to conclusi= on would be very helpful.

RjS

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: Review requested: draft-ietf-stir-passport

Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:56:37 -0500

From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>

To: jwt-reg-re= view@ietf.org

CC: Jon Peterson <jon.peterson@gmail.com>, chris_we= ndt@cable.comcast.com <chris_wendt@cable.comcast.com>, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>

Please review the registration request in section 11.2 of

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-= passport/>

The registration request itself is copied below for your convenience.

Robert Sparks - STIR WG co-chair

-----------

11.2. JSON Web Token Claims Registration 11.2.1. Registry Contents Additions Requested o Claim Name: "orig" o Claim Description: Originating Identity String o Change Controller: IESG o Specification Document(s): Section 5.2.1 of [RFCThis] o Claim Name: "dest" o Claim Description: Destination Identity String o Change Controller: IESG o Specification Document(s): Section 5.2.1 of [RFCThis] o Claim Name: "mky" o Claim Description: Media Key Fingerprint String o Change Controller: IESG o Specification Document(s): Section 5.2.2 of [RFCThis]