Re: [Asap] Comments on draft-engi-siptrunkingcapability-link-01

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Thu, 08 September 2022 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: asap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CA8C15259D for <asap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 10:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=packetizer.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Utqu4XSTEyJS for <asap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 10:44:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [IPv6:2600:1f18:24d6:2e01:e842:9b2b:72a2:d2c6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 278C8C14F721 for <asap@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Sep 2022 10:43:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from authuser (localhost [127.0.0.1])
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1662659032; bh=ncB/uUnDmtWXkphO5II2tuqo0Kv0N/tQE+bHrixtbJ4=; h=From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date; b=RuTKp/NHUr1WrOBBd/CSYTLz0nwoheby8KK0NUnggre0hEx7ZzbUtUt2Vonj7OHoV Yf2xQ1vkkfIsRXlrCrik+kUmWdkpxRHVdGk9vIL1IYKPVbBMYCOcsnFPbMvXXG0EZd HWmezOQM9I5k6GBSiJNI0xHvPSffqqfTx55jqlzw=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: asap@ietf.org
References:
In-Reply-To:
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 13:43:46 -0400
Message-ID: <11bd01d8c3aa$8ea982c0$abfc8840$@packetizer.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_11BE_01D8C389.07987F00"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQMNgr+yo5rbqZIzs8ivhKbbJ8142qtsTtaA
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/asap/9PvoAdvuNWWe_wOIlscAaMmbErY>
Subject: Re: [Asap] Comments on draft-engi-siptrunkingcapability-link-01
X-BeenThere: asap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Automatic SIP trunking And Peering WG <asap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/asap>, <mailto:asap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/asap/>
List-Post: <mailto:asap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asap>, <mailto:asap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2022 17:44:06 -0000

Just one follow-up on the last paragraph below.  The text in
draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer says, "This request can be challenged by the
service provider to authenticate the enterprise", which would also
facilitate returning a tailored response given the authentication
credentials.  In that case (and perhaps even more preferred), the URI in the
WebFinger response should not include identifying information itself.  It
would be redundant.

 

Paul

 

 

From: Paul E. Jones <paulej@packetizer.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 5:03 PM
To: 'asap@ietf.org' <asap@ietf.org>
Subject: Comments on draft-engi-siptrunkingcapability-link-01

 

ASAP WG,

 

In section 3, I see "comprised of".  That should be "composed of".

 

In section 4 regarding this sentence: "The need for an enterprise telephony
network to obtain a capability set document from an Internet Telephony
Service Provider (ITSP) is documented in Automatic Peering for SIP Trunks
[I-D.ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer]."  Since this is an example section, I would
suggest moving that to section 3.  Let section 4 be strictly example, not
justification.  The sentence immediately following this explains what the
link relation enables.  Again, I'd move that, but I think it's already
well-covered at this point. Maybe just remove it?

 

How would the enterprise know to query "http:// ssp1.example.com"?  Is that
preconfigured? Perhaps a word about that would be useful. What if the ITSP
has different customers with different capabilities offered? I would expect
that to be likely. An ITSP could configure different resource per customer
using "http" type resource identifiers, but I wonder if it might make more
sense to use urn:uuid, acct, or some other URI type? My preference would be
for using the "acct" URI like "acct:trunkent1456@example.com".  (I noted a
similar example in draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer.)

 

Further, it might make sense for the WebFinger response to align with the
example in section 9.2 of draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer.  Perhaps the URL
returned should point to
https://capserver.ssp1.com/capdoc?trunkid=trunkent1456.

 

Paul