Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-10.txt

Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org> Thu, 22 September 2016 22:32 UTC

Return-Path: <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
X-Original-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801E112BFD0 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <NZtrCKWsxqa4>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZtrCKWsxqa4 for <ecrit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from turing.pensive.org (turing.pensive.org [99.111.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A8712BFCD for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [99.111.97.136] (99.111.97.161) by turing.pensive.org with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.9); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:32:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624060ed40a0c037738@[99.111.97.136]>
In-Reply-To: <20fe1acb-4ba0-d9ce-cf93-3e09ef3a3378@alum.mit.edu>
References: <147449984691.14574.14733945301450103878.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <728511ac-d655-936c-4044-2bf65a943f95@alum.mit.edu> <p06240600d409b441e5b4@[99.111.97.136]> <6340414c-9e49-0234-69a1-2e4bd346225d@alum.mit.edu> <p0624060cd409f3ccca4a@[99.111.97.136]> <20fe1acb-4ba0-d9ce-cf93-3e09ef3a3378@alum.mit.edu>
X-Mailer: Eudora for Mac OS X
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 15:32:45 -0700
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
From: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@randy.pensive.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
X-Random-Sig-Tag: 1.0b28
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ecrit/YCJsvX9J2BGJbOfG9KvttE5xlFw>
Cc: ECRIT <ecrit@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ecrit/>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:32:49 -0000

At 6:25 PM -0400 9/22/16, Paul Kyzivat wrote:

>  see end
>
>  On 9/22/16 5:46 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>  At 3:08 PM -0400 9/22/16, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>
>>>   Randall,
>>>
>>>   (Including ecrit)
>>>
>>>   On 9/22/16 12:26 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>>>   Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>>   Thanks very much for the quick review and comments.  I'm making other
>>>>   changes requested by Christer, and I want to fix the ones you found as
>>>>   well.
>>>>
>>>>   Section 12 is the Security Considerations.
>>>
>>>   In the -10 version I am looking at section 12 is Examples.
>>
>>  Sorry, I missed that you were replying to -10; I'd incorrectly assumed
>>  you were replying to -12.
>>
>>>
>>>>   Did you mean Section 11, the
>>>>   Examples?  Or maybe Figure 10 (one of the examples)?   More to the
>>>>  point
>>>>   on correct C-D, there's text in Section 6 that says:
>>>>
>>>>      If the body part
>>>>      containing the MSD or metadata/control block is the only body part,
>>>>      it has a Content-Disposition header field value of "Info-Package;
>>>>      handling=optional".  If it is contained within a multipart body
>>>>  part,
>>>>      it has a Content-Disposition header field value of "By-Reference;
>>>>      handling=optional".
>>>>
>>>>   So this is wrong?  What should it say?
>>>
>>>   That text seems ok, at least for this case.
>>>
>>>   IIUC it isn't discussing the C-D *on* the multipart/mixed container.
>>>  It is discussing parts *within* the multipart. Those seem to be
>>>  correctly tagged.
>>>
>>>   The "Info-Package" C-D is only applicable for an INFO message. Since
>>>  this isn't an INFO message it makes no sense to use it.
>>
>>  That was fixed in -12.
>>
>>  I'm about to upload -13, which fixes the C-D issues.  I also added text
>>  to clarify that "handling=optional" is only used in the initial INVITE,
>>  to protect the INVITE from being rejected if it is processed by a legacy
>>  element (such as a gateway between SIP and CS) that does not understand
>>  an MSD.  I fixed the examples to comply.
>
>  handling=optional is probably wrong on the multipart for an INVITE 
> that contains an SDP offer. The processing of the SDP isn't 
> optional, and if you encounter a UAS that doesn't support multipart 
> then you want it to fail, not to be treated as an INVITE with no 
> offer.

Sorry for not being clear in my earlier message; the clarifications 
in the draft say that "handling=optional" in the initial INVITE 
applies to the MSD (in eCall), the VEDS (in car-crash), and the 
metadata/control object (in both) and the PIDF-LO.  It doesn't apply 
to the SDP nor the enclosing multipart, for the reasons you state.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
. . . It wasn't until the jet engine came into being and that
engine was coupled with special airplane designs - such as the
swept wing - that airplanes finally achieved a high enough work
capability, efficiency and comfort level to allow air
transportation to really take off.
        --Joseph F. Sutter, Boeing Commercial Airplanes