[dispatch] draft-dawes-dispatch-logme-reqs-02

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 22 July 2013 21:24 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 3A10711E8161 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.536, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
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 A6Z-htuZrRa2 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:23:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3884111E8150 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.12]) by qmta13.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 3Xn21m0090Fqzac5DZPtbR; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 21:23:53 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta08.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 3ZPt1m01C3ZTu2S3UZPtvx; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 21:23:53 +0000
Message-ID: <51EDA2E8.1050603@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 17:23:52 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1374528233; bh=T+yOUG97OBXeXElL3lc+JWQQr5cc0Ot7IOq/nK9KNmQ=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=neQ/+qrv1dUKiqBf/BkDwYY8YPEN19EATUhF9YuwTQGDSd1btzRrrNTJYdd+Sr3W8 vAe67+U69lnFUrAQ+PgMwoYGiWhStny/TcfWJgqvJk8ahQ8kA0sQEI4K2d3FVU53Hn ZD7OsONGrza588MLup/Uzh9QvtzPht4KNa2/YnSCXFiE86SVds/AaVXEEB9S/Ojdj0 o2NEAR7nrLhy/I5W/o60sI272O3oXVxBbZpA468iKSShAePQkY+KuNVpSSTsAyI4RZ ec7mmlC1G2vpx3CxMYHa7wPN0w/hGDIe2y23udfh3Zh61nSmxecTU6aqqwEpFeRy6o 9Yb5ougcyIRfQ==
Subject: [dispatch] draft-dawes-dispatch-logme-reqs-02
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 21:24:01 -0000

Some questions about this draft:

The requirements and other discussion imply certain behavior by servers 
that support this. I'd like to hear more explicit discussion of what 
that expected behavior is, within the potential solutions.

E.g., when some servers are expected to be dialog stateful. Also if 
logging is to stop after some period of time.

Section 7.1:

This says the header is first inserted by the UAC. There might be reason 
to have it inserted by the UAS in some cases, or even a proxy or B2BUA 
based on policy for debugging a UA that can't be controlled.

Is free text good enough for identifying test cases? Isn't there 
possibility of collision? Since there is likely to be resistance to 
meaningful names that might tunnel information, perhaps these should be 
random numbers.

I want to hear more about sending the address of the server collecting 
logs. For this to be useful there must be an explicit or implicit 
protocol used to transmit the logs. Is there one such protocol or many? 
If many, how do you know which will be supported? What about trust by 
the server doing the logging of the log server, and authorization by the 
log server of those sending logs? Will all servers doing logging want to 
use a server chosen by the one inserting the logme request?

Section 7.2:

Where does the test case id go with this solution?

In Figure 3 the call-info in the figure is syntactically incorrect. The 
parameter is a domain name, but it is required to be a URL.

	Thanks,
	Paul