[Asap] I-D Action: draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer-09.txt

Nicola Serafini <n.serafini@tutanota.com> Mon, 27 November 2023 06:26 UTC

Return-Path: <n.serafini@tutanota.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 C48B9C14CF1C for <asap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 22:26:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tutanota.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 dqaRKnnPZ5JJ for <asap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 22:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from w1.tutanota.de (w1.tutanota.de [81.3.6.162]) (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 418C6C14CF1D for <asap@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 2023 22:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tutadb.w10.tutanota.de (unknown [192.168.1.10]) by w1.tutanota.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D243FBFB46 for <asap@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Nov 2023 06:25:55 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1701066355; s=s1; d=tutanota.com; h=From:From:To:To:Subject:Subject:Content-Description:Content-ID:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:Date:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Message-ID:Reply-To:References:Sender; bh=cDXvI0KoUrl+SUQiUxbwo+PsOIqqSbqnNnmY6SbxHAU=; b=3jg3/9NTKpdmHKby5LEYzN0QMz7yuT9l20xdhV+uTMuG4M9PzMeqj45GOU7tXMit XjJbHhK7FxvNRaWvYQT14+Lx5VGrUQ/AWAqCxYviY480NRcOmvFuF0eUk2KiDWIY4cf ceDRe9JBfKYvcRo4vuBBuG3M9HKK+m4AmxMPodPRtsh0YxX5GclbiORw92Dz/WYYwE9 KTxhgcIT2UAWtG7AHUVDyMyS5caE3gOKMVbuR9UhmFR11wJTwfAElPH5FvR6eaj+38y +d0qd4TSO7nMQKMUENkPonCHnmcaOlPuMc8NEDjKaPEMscQww5otvEb/BHUo7oDriMq tJHlabRBTA==
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 07:25:55 +0100
From: Nicola Serafini <n.serafini@tutanota.com>
To: Asap <asap@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <NkEPiZy--3-9@tutanota.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_109187_1458505391.1701066355372"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/asap/ODbRooas6Ea009epKMrEYpJxf4U>
Subject: [Asap] I-D Action: draft-ietf-asap-sip-auto-peer-09.txt
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: Mon, 27 Nov 2023 06:26:01 -0000

Hi everybody, first of all,  many thanks for your work.

While reading the draft, I may noticed some typos regarding the HTTP protocol, all of those typos I identified use HTTPS instead of HTTP; a week ago I emailed Authors and I have not received any response so far.

An example of typo that I also referenced in my previous email is Section "2.1. Reference Architecture":
2.1.  Reference Architecture   Figure 1 illustrates a reference architecture that may be deployed to   support the mechanism described in this document.  The enterprise   network consists of a SIP-PBX, media endpoints (M.E.) and a Session   Border Controller [RFC7092].  It may also include additional   components such as application servers for voicemail, recording, fax   etc.  At a high level, the service provider consists of a SIP   signaling entity (SP-SSE), a media entity for handling media streams   of calls setup by the SP-SSE and a HTTPS [RFC7231] server.
As you can see here, I think "HTTPS [RFC7231]" is typo for three main reasons:

    1 - RFC7231 defines HTTP protocol.
    2 - RFC7231 was obsoleted by RFC9110 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110).
    3 - RFC9110 also obsoletes RFC2818 (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2818).

Another example is:
   Taking the above considerations into account, this document proposes   a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)-based workflow using which the   enterprise network can solicit and ultimately obtain the service   provider capability set.  The enterprise network creates a well   formed HTTPS GET request to solicit the service provider capability   set.  Subsequently, the HTTPS response from the SIP service provider   includes the capability set.  The capability set is encoded in JSON,   thus ensuring that the response can be easily parsed by automation.

Where I believe you mean: "[...] The enterprise network creates a well formed HTTP GET request [...]".

Finally, I agree with you that you may want to suggest the use of HTTP over TLS for this architecture.

Am I wrong with this concerns/suggestions?


Regards,

--
Nicola