Re: [Gen-art] [Insipid] Gen-ART review of draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03.txt

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 17:30 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 2864221F9E89 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.329
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_SAVELE=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 AyyUYFShw5TN for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590AD21F9E62 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 10:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7MHUkjB024201 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 19:30:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8917.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8917.cisco.com [10.116.132.56]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7MHUhOJ024627; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:30:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5216458A.5040608@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:30:43 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <45C07F42-21DD-45BF-B9F4-CCFC01B022FB@cisco.com>
References: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA128B4D41@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <5216458A.5040608@nostrum.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "gen-art@ietf.org Review Team" <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id.all@tools.ietf.org, insipid@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] [Insipid] Gen-ART review of draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03.txt
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 22 Aug 2013 17:30:54 -0000

On Aug 22, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
 wrote:

> Adding the working group.
> 
> Dan - thanks for this review. I've been working towards trying to express a concern, and this really helped clarify what was bothering me.
> 
> This document, AFAIK, _is not_ actually trying to register the Session-ID header with IANA, even though there is a section that looks like it does.
> 
> Rather, that registration is in http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-insipid-session-id/
> 
> That is a very good example of how just adding the explanatory paragraph at the beginning of the document isn't enough to turn this into something that documents an earlier path considered and implementation that exists current deployments - the text needs to be touched in several places to make it clear that's what the document is doing.  In the IANA considerations case, one possible adjustment is to change the text to "here's what known implementations have used for syntax. See [draft-ietf-insipid-session-id] for the intended registered syntax", and not issue instructions to IANA.

During the shepherd write-up I made a similar same comment.  I think the right thing to do is to write explanatory text detailing that this document is in fact not registering anything because all relevant IANA registrations are deferred to the active WG document defining the new session id (draft-ietf-insipid-session-id).  It should also explain that documeny has the responsibility to assure backwards compatibility with this document.

--G

> 
> It's more work for Hadriel, but I think it's necessary.
> 
> RjS
> 
> 
> On 8/21/13 12:26 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>> 
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> 
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive.
>> 
>> Document: draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03.txt
>> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
>> Review Date: 8/21
>> IETF LC End Date: 8/30
>> IESG Telechat date:
>> 
>> Summary:
>> Ready with Issues
>> 
>> Major issues:
>> 
>> 1. In similar situations when IETF WGs decided to document proprietary solutions that were used as a basis for standards-track RFCs Historic RFCs were issued rather than Informational RFCs. See for example RFC 5412, 5413, 5414 which documented the prior art that was used to create RFC 5415. Publication of these documents was also withhold until the standards-track RFC was published. None of these precedents is followed here. One of the reasons for the WG to prefer Informational rather than Historic is the fact that the registration of a new SIP header field is required from IANA, and in conformance with RFC 5727 this can be done in an Informational RFC, but not in a Historic one. What is missing however is clear text that the solution described in this document is a legacy solution and that the solution going forward is the one that is being defined by the INSIPID WG. The IESG should also consider whether this document should be approved for publication before the standards
> -t
>>  rack solution defined by the INSIPID WG is also published.
>> 
>> 2. The Abstract makes the claim that the Standards-Track RFC that will be eventually produced by the INSIPID WG will be developped in a backwards-compatible manner with this document. This does not seem appropriate here - if at all such a requirement should be included in draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt. However it does not appear there, and that document was recently submitted for publication to the IESG, so the WG did not include it in its consensus.
>> 
>> Minor issues:
>> 
>> 1. The IANA considerations sections need to be more explicit in demonstrating that the conditions for registration of extension SIP header fields in Informational RFCs have been met as per RFC 5727. That RFC defines that Designated Expert review needs to happen for such new registrations - I could not find a proof that such a review took place in the shepherd write-up. Actually the question about the expert reviews is not answered directly, instead of an answer wide deployment is mentioned, but that deployment could not use this SIP header field which was not yet approved. According to RFC 5727 there are two basic conditions that need to be verified by the Designated Expert - that the proposed header field must be of a purely informational nature and must not significantly change the behavior of SIP entities that support it, and that the proposed header field must not undermine SIP security in any sense, and that the Informational RFC defining the header field must address 
> se
>>  curity issues in detail, as if it were a standards-track document. I believe that both conditions are met by the I-D, but there is no adequate text in the IANA considerations section to explain this.
>> 
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> insipid mailing list
> insipid@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
>