IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24

"Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com> Thu, 18 August 2016 01:47 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8E612D504; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 xZnHODamfQo2; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD8E312B027; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1141; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471484843; x=1472694443; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=12uYujhVVP+1sVyhDsWFHN9QshObhb/AQBKC1/NMzYY=; b=Jkr4SP4cvPvDKyJJMlu/sXWHUUTUNf5ybRFbpNCKvBx0E4fEH27oruVn XFvKNMP/aD4KzH8qzYOjmSonlxElJVb6AofCiFCZ3Acf/hO6SU5L+AnJf iFVE6l3Zje0vTfvHx8rByiS9XLBfmDvj6jRYmw/BNDabUYG6EANJG9tFk k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CIAgC9ErVX/5tdJa1eg0SBUge3VIF9hh0CgWk4FAIBAQEBAQEBXieEXgEBBAEnEy0SBQsCAQgYHhAyJQIEDgWIKQi+EwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARyGKoF4CIJNhBwkgyyCLwEEmUQBjx2PSYw7g3cBHjaDem6FaEZ/AQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,536,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="138876302"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 18 Aug 2016 01:47:22 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (xch-aln-018.cisco.com [173.36.7.28]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7I1lMvR029404 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:47:22 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com (173.36.7.19) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:47:22 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) by XCH-ALN-009.cisco.com ([173.36.7.19]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 20:47:22 -0500
From: "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24
Thread-Index: AQHR+NZaAjhneraDukqF90PUIVlheaBOLrIAgAAYXoA=
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:47:21 +0000
Message-ID: <91512439-BA38-4C47-BB71-DAB4EC2A6AFF@cisco.com>
References: <pe04eo7uwhsm1a1pyh3i0c7e.1471038202004@email.android.com> <B745A028-9B9B-4FA0-BA7B-8027A8BD349B@nostrum.com> <c2c91da2-41c9-0244-4214-cee853ef66d5@folly.org.uk> <B9A67A12-B74D-47E6-B67A-6AEFE7BB1D74@nostrum.com> <FC37CFCC-DF3E-4C26-94FB-3CB1174F8634@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <FC37CFCC-DF3E-4C26-94FB-3CB1174F8634@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.220.232]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1A7151508114EE418B5193522B0CBEDC@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/_RQPouCasFmOGHHrPXPRSV3JrvQ>
Cc: "Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <pgiralt@cisco.com>, Elwyn Davies <elwynd@folly.org.uk>, General area reviewing team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-insipid-session-id.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-insipid-session-id.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 01:47:25 -0000

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 8:20 PM, Paul Giralt (pgiralt) <pgiralt@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 17, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Back to the current document:  I have reread s3 of RFC 7206 and there are some points that need to be sorted out:
>>> 
>>> - The term 'end-to-end' is given a slightly specialized meaning in RFC 7206.  This is presumably carried through to the draft under review, but the need to refer to the end-to-end definition is not mentioned in the draft.
>>> 
>>> - The use of 'session' as a shorthand for the specific meaning of 'communication session' defined in RFC 7206 ought to be emphasized within the draft since the shorthand in RFC 7206 is technically limited to the RFC (ok, this is somewhat nitpicking but easy to misinterpret.)
>> 
>> I agree with both of the above points. Authors?

I think it is nuanced but worth pointing out those subtleties, especially session->communication session.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

> 
> These are fair points and can easily be addressed with some additional verbiage in Section 3.

v2.19.0 | Report a Bug | By Email