Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind
Mayumi Ohsugi <mayumi.ohsugi@ntt-at.co.jp> Wed, 11 September 2013 01:34 UTC
Return-Path: <mayumi.ohsugi@ntt-at.co.jp>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CADF11E8189 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.439
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9qPFJskvGvTO for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw2.ntt-at.co.jp (mgw2.ntt-at.co.jp [202.253.162.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E568211E80F3 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gwall2.bb.ntt-at.co.jp ([192.168.225.242]) by mgw2i.dc.ntt-at.co.jp with ESMTP; 11 Sep 2013 10:34:35 +0900
Received: (from root@localhost) by gwall2.bb.ntt-at.co.jp (8.13.1/8.13.1) id r8B1YZim025268; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:34:35 +0900
Received: from vcsrv1d.dc.ntt-at.co.jp [192.168.225.46] by gwall2.bb.ntt-at.co.jp with ESMTP id LAA25267; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:34:34 +0900
Received: from vcsrv1d.dc.ntt-at.co.jp (vcsrv1d.dc.ntt-at.co.jp [127.0.0.1]) by vcsrv1d.dc.ntt-at.co.jp (vcsrv1d) with ESMTP id r8B1YZ6J016967; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:34:35 +0900
Received: from atmail17.am.ntt-at.co.jp (atmail17.am.ntt-at.co.jp [192.168.225.144]) by vcsrv1d.dc.ntt-at.co.jp (vcsrv1d) with ESMTP id r8B1YZfk016964; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:34:35 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip21-098.tec.ntt-at.co.jp [192.168.21.98]) by atmail17.am.ntt-at.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF333940056; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:34:34 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <522FC89C.6020507@ntt-at.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:34:20 +0900
From: Mayumi Ohsugi <mayumi.ohsugi@ntt-at.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <51E4B4ED.4060305@ntt-at.co.jp> <7D2F7D7ADBA812449F25F4A69922881C14AA59@ESESSMB203.ericsson.se> <7D2F7D7ADBA812449F25F4A69922881C16E34A@ESESSMB203.ericsson.se> <56FB15AFE08E1242B0736CBDCE6E8561080C73A3@STNTEXMB10.cis.neustar.com> <521F07CB.4040305@ntt-at.co.jp> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B08B1F8@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B08B1F8@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-MML: No
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>, "Yu, James" <james.yu@neustar.biz>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 01:34:41 -0000
Keith, Thank you for the comments. Sorry for the late reply. #9 OK, I will keep the sentence regarding subdomains as it is. 7.1.1 I will correct "breaking" to "break-in". I believe that all the comments have been solved so I will submit the revised draft soon. Thanks, Mayumi (2013/08/30 3:44), DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > The proposed changes are OK except: > > #9: I would prefer we mentioned multiple domain names and subdomains, rather than deleting subdomains. > > #10: I agree we should not specify this. Break-in in 3GPP would be an application server type function, and it is up to the enterprise how it wants to instruct the public network to handle such break-in. It could be a single default value. It could be based on the Request-URI in the request. It could be based on all sorts of things. > > Additionally in reviewing this I spotted in subclause 7.1.1 a "breaking" that should be "break-in". > > Regards > > Keith > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Mayumi Ohsugi >> Sent: 29 August 2013 09:35 >> To: Yu, James >> Cc: dispatch@ietf.org; Cullen Jennings >> Subject: Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private- >> network-ind >> >> Hi James, >> >> Thank you for the comments to the P-Private-Network-Indication draft. >> See inline. >> >> (2013/08/29 6:59), Yu, James wrote: >>> Mayumi, >>> >>> I have a few comments below. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> James >>> >>> ------------------- >>> >>> #1. Page 4, Section 1.1, 2nd sentence: Remove the parentheses >>> and either leave the sentence at the same place or move it to a footnote. >> >> [MO] I will remove the parentheses. >> >>> >>> #2. Page 5, Section 1.5, 1st paragraph: Change the sentence >>> containing "network element (supporting this specification) >>> traversed" to "A private network indication as proposed by >>> this document that is received in an incoming request indicates >>> to the receiving network element (supporting this specification) >>> that this request is related to a private network traffic as >>> opposed to a public network traffic.". >> >> [MO] I prefer a little shorter sentence. I will correct it to >> "A private network indication as proposed by this document >> indicates to the receiving network element (supporting this >> specification) that this request is related to a private >> network traffic as opposed to a public network traffic." >> >> >>> Change "on behalf to" to"on behalf of" in the 2nd to the last line. >> >> [MO] Yes, I will. >> >>> >>> #3. Page 6, Section 1.5, the last set of items 1 and 2: >>> Change "As caller" to "Caller" in item 1. >>> Change "network" to "networks" in the 1st line and "is" to "are" >>> in the 3rd line of item 2. >> >> [MO] I will make these editorial corrections. >> >>> >>> #4. Page 8, 1st paragraph and Figure 1 (and other places?): >>> It may be better to use "pre-arranged domain name" instead of >>> "common domain". Suggest to change the 1st paragraph to >>> "There may be circumstances where traffic between two different >>> enterprises are tagged as private network traffic using a >>> pre-arranged domain name agreed by the two involved enterprises." >> >> [MO] I agree your suggestion is much better. >> I will change the sentence as you proposed. >> >>> >>> #5. Page 8, last paragraph, 6th line: Change "break out" to "break-out". >> >> [MO] I will correct it. >> >>> >>> #6. Page 10, Figure 3: Between the enterprise phone and the >>> hosted enterprise service for enterprise 1, should it be >>> "public network traffic" because there is no need to include >>> the P-Private-Network-Indication header field in the request >>> in either direction. >> >> [MO] The traffic can be either public or private. >> This figure shows the example where the traffic is tagged as private. >> I will correct the explanation of Figure 3 as follows; >> "Traffic from the enterprise phones would not normally be >> tagged, but it can be tagged as private network traffic." >> >>> >>> #7. Page 10, Section 5, R1: Change "that indicates" to "to indicate". >> >> [MO] I will. >> >>> >>> #8. Page 11, last paragraph: Insert "a" before "globally" in the 2nd >> line. >>> Also the 2nd line says "associated with the originating enterprise". >>> For a common domain, the PNI would be associated with both the >>> originating and terminating enterprises. >> >> [MO] I will insert "a" before "globally" and >> correct "associated with the originating enterprise" to >> "associated with the originating and/or terminating enterprise(s)". >> >>> >>> #9. Page 12, 1st paragraph: "subdomains" is mentioned when anenterprise >>> needs more than one identifier. But the I-D should notrule out that >>> an enterprise can use multiple domain names so long as it owns them. >> >> [MO] I will delete the sentence regarding subdomain >> in order not to mention about subdomain in this draft. >> >>> >>> #10. Page 12, Section 7.1.1: If a common domain name is used, >>> the PNI would correspond to two enterprises in the last sentence. >>> In case an enterprise has more than one identifiers, the proxy would >>> need to know which identifier is to be used when it needs to convert >>> public network traffic to private network . I don't know if the proxy >>> has the knowledge to know the appropriate identifier to use based on >>> the incoming request. If not, there should be a default identifier >>> and the procedure needs to be discussed. >> >> [MO] I will correct "enterprise" to "enterprise(s)". >> Regarding the multiple identifiers, which identity should be used will be >> implementation matter, so I would like to avoid mention it in this draft. >> >>> >>> #11. Page 12, Section 7.1.2: Change "on" to "in" in the 4th line >>> and insert "a" before "case" in the 2nd to the last line. >>> The 1st server in the public telecom network that receives the >>> P-Private-Network-Indication header field in an incoming request >>> should check if the originating enterprise can include the >>> indicateddomain name in the header field (also see comment #15 >> >> [MO] I will make these editorial corrections. >> >>> >>> #12. Page 12, Section 7.1.3: Change "breakout" to "break-out" >>> in the 2nd line to be consistent. Is there a need to include >>> "with a value" in the last line? The text would imply that this >>> header field is not removed if it does not contain a value. >>> This header field should always be removed. >> >> [MO] I will correct "breakout" to "break-out". >> I agree and will delete "with a value". >> >>> >>> #13. Page 13, 1st paragraph, last sentence: "for a specific enterprise" >>> probably does not apply to the case with a common domain name used by >>> two enterprises. >> >> [MO] I will correct "for a specific enterprise" to >> "for a specific enterprise(s)". >> >>> >>> #14. Page 13, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line: Change "the following" to >> "described below". >> >> [MO] I will correct it as you proposed. >> >>> >>> #15. Page 13, Section 9: Change "physically" to "physical" in the 5th >> line. >>> When an enterprise includes the P-Private-Network-Indication header >> field >>> in a request, should the public telecom network check if the originating >>> enterprise can use that domain name? If an enterprise wrongly uses >> another >>> enterprise's domain name without any verification, the only impact is >> that >>> rules for another enterprise is applied to the traffic related to this >> request. >>> But for the purpose of security, the public telecom network would be >>> provisioned with the domain names that can be used in the this header >> field >>> for each served enterprise. >> >> [MO] I will correct "physically" to "physical". >> Regarding the verification of domain name by the public telecom network, >> I will put a new subsection as follows; >> >> 7.1.4. P-Private-Network-Indication verification >> When proxies supporting this specification receive a P-Private-Network- >> Indication >> header field in a SIP request from a trusted node, proxies MUST check >> whether >> the received domain name in the request is the same as the domain name >> associated >> with the provisioned domain name. If the received domain name does not >> match, >> proxies MUST remove the P-Private-Network-Indication header field. >> >>> >>> #16. Page 14, 1st paragraph: Not clear about "the own proxy" in the 2nd >> line. >>> Change "understand the" to "understand this". >> >> [MO] I will delete "such as the own proxy" and >> correct "understands the" to "understands this". >> >> Many Thanks, >> Mayumi >> >> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Atle Monrad [mailto:atle.monrad@ERICSSON.COM] >>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 5:35 AM >>> To: 3GPP_TSG_CT_IETF-COORD@LIST.ETSI.ORG >>> Subject: FW: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private- >> network-ind >>> >>> Again >>> >>> Kindly review and/or advocate support for this draft on the dispatch- >> list. >>> >>> It seems to be close to completion!! >>> >>> thanks >>> /a >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Atle Monrad >>> 3GPP CT Chairman >>> >>> Group Function Technology - Standardization and Technical Regulation >> Ericsson >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Atle Monrad >>> Sent: 29. juli 2013 10:40 >>> To: Mayumi Ohsugi; dispatch@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private- >> network-ind >>> >>> All >>> >>> Thanks to Mayumi to pick up the remaining topics on this draft. >>> >>> I have reviewed the new version. >>> >>> I have no comments and can confirm that 3GPP would like to get the draft >> completed to finish one of our long time outstanding dependencies. >>> >>> cheers >>> /atle >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> >>> Atle Monrad >>> 3GPP CT Chairman >>> >>> Group Function Technology - Standardization and Technical Regulation >> Ericsson >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dispatch-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dispatch-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Mayumi Ohsugi >>> Sent: 16. juli 2013 04:50 >>> To: dispatch@ietf.org >>> Subject: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private- >> network-ind >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have submitted the following draft: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vanelburg-dispatch-private-network-ind- >> 02.txt >>> >>> The draft was discussed in DISPATCH list three years ago. >>> While it has been expired for more than two years, the draft has been >> referred in 3GPP IMS specifications and the P-Private-Network-Indication >> header field is now implemented by some vendors for enterprise customers. >>> >>> We have updated the draft to solve the remaining issues from Expert >> Review (by John Elwell) of three years ago. >>> >>> Any comments are welcome. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mayumi >>> >>> ----- >>> Mayumi Ohsugi, NTT >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dispatch mailing list >>> dispatch@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dispatch mailing list >>> dispatch@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >>> >>> ----- >>> No virus found in this message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 3211/6577 - Release Date: >> 08/14/13 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dispatch mailing list >> dispatch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >
- [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dispatc… Mayumi Ohsugi
- Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dis… Atle Monrad
- Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dis… Yu, James
- Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dis… Mayumi Ohsugi
- Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dis… Yu, James
- Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dis… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [dispatch] New version of draft-vanelburg-dis… Mayumi Ohsugi