Subject: [stir] Alissa Cooper's Abstain on draft-ietf-stir-oob-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019 12:11:25 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-oob-06: Abstain

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-oob/

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

I understand why this document has been useful for the WG to discuss, but I'm
unclear on its lasting value as an RFC, especially with a number of open issues
of possible different directions under consideration that are listed in the
draft.

Please respond to the Gen-ART review if this document moves forward.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:22:11 -0600

> of possible different directions under consideration that are listed in the

The missing piece of the puzzle here may be that there are external 
groups who work on call spam abatement. See, in particular, the SHAKEN 
solution developed by ATIS on top of the STIR work. So there is a high 
chance that this document will serve as useful input to concrete 
external efforts. Publishing it as an RFC makes it more reasonably 
citable by such external entities.

/a

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 16:03:03 -0500

> On Dec 4, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The missing piece of the puzzle here may be that there are external groups who work on call spam abatement. See, in particular, the SHAKEN solution developed by ATIS on top of the STIR work. So there is a high chance that this document will serve as useful input to concrete external efforts. Publishing it as an RFC makes it more reasonably citable by such external entities.

Along those lines: I’m currently at the SIPNOC conference in Washington. A large number of attendees have shown interest in STIR OOB. Most of these are not people who would ordinarily participate in the IETF. Some are participants in the IP-NNI task force (The ATIS group Adam mentioned). I think this draft will be useful in helping them frame their thinking. I’m not sure other methods of publication would reach that audience as well.

Ben.

> 
> /a
> 
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir