Subject: [sipcore] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2019 07:02:20 -0700

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-sipcore-callinfo-spam-04: No Objection

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-sipcore-callinfo-spam/

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

Section 1.  Per the reference to “the historical precedent of the ‘blue
pages’”, is that a references understandable outside of the US/Canada?

Section 1.  Per “In the United States, industry organizations have proposed …”,
is there a citation for this activity?

Section 4.  Typo.  s/equipement/equipment/

Section 8.1.  ‘Confidence’ appears to be missing from the list of new
parameters to register in "Header Field Parameters and Parameter Values" under
“Call-Info”.

Section 8.3.  Per idnits, RFC 5226  is obsoleted by RFC 8126

Section 9.  Per “Thus, a UAS SHOULD NOT trust the information … unless … the
UAS is protected by TLS [RFC8446]”, is this text explicitly saying only TLS
v1.3 is trusted (i.e., TLS v1.2 or a future TLS v2 would not be trusted)?  I’d
recommend indicating a TLS version number (e.g., TLS 1.2+ or per RFC7525)

Section 9.  Nit.  /the called party is mislead/the called party is misled/