From: Kurt Zeilenga <Kurt.Zeilenga@Isode.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 07:21:39 -0800
Message-Id: <00650698-AADF-4BF1-A036-2B95AEFE6069@Isode.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>,
 draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows@tools.ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review: draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows
Precedence: list

I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for =
this draft (for background on apps-review, please =
seehttp://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments =
you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd =
or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows (rev-07 reviewed)
Title: Example call flows using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) =
security mechanisms
Reviewer: Kurt Zeilenga
Review Date: 12/15/2010
IETF Last Call Date: [include if known]
IESG Telechat Date: 2011-01-20
Summary: This draft is basically ready for publication as an =
Informational RFC but has a few issues that should be fixed before =
publication.
Major Issues: None.
Minor Issues:=20

I see some inconsistencies in how Distinguished Names (DNs) are =
presented in the RFC.

For instance (from 2.1):
   Issuer: C=3DUS, ST=3DCalifornia, L=3DSan Jose, O=3Dsipit,
           OU=3DSipit Test Certificate Authority

vs. (also from 2.1)
   DirName:/C=3DUS/ST=3DCalifornia/L=3DSan Jose/O=3Dsipit/
           OU=3DSipit Test Certificate Authority

The former kind of looks like the LDAP DN format but, if that's what was =
intended, the RDNs appear in the incorrect order.  Note that in the LDAP =
DN format, the most specific element appears first (the reverse of how =
they appear in the BER/DER encoding of a DN).  Also, there should be no =
spaces after the RDN separators (the commas).

The latter appears to be DCE format.

I would think it appropriate to use a single format for all DNs and, if =
one chooses to use the LDAP DN format, that values ought to be =
constructed per RFC 4514.  I note that Appendix A of RFC 4514 discusses =
presentation issues of Distinguished Names.

Nits: The usual (many acronyms are not spelled out on first use, etc.)=