Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13

[Atle Monrad <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Roland

Mary, is the draft back on track ??

:)

/atle

________________________________


Atle Monrad
3GPP CT Chairman

Group Function Technology - Standardization and Technical Regulation
Ericsson


From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 10. april 2014 10:07
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Atle Monrad; Gonzalo Camarillo; [e-mail]
Subject: AW: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13

Hi Marry,
I'm really sorry, this mail slipped through my hands. And I didn't see anything in the data tracker history. Since I'm the main Editor, it is my fault that this was not answered.
It is true we cannot claim any speed if we do nothing. Again I'm Sorry.

So here are my answers. For the Gen-review.
So I have created a Version -14 which I can upload now. Please indicate if I should do this or if I should wait for further comments?


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-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13

Reviewer: Martin Thomson

Review Date: 2014-02-27

IETF LC End Date: 2014-03-14

IESG Telechat date: (if known)



Summary: I find it strange that this 3GPP document is being published on the standards track.  But since it's a -bis there is clearly precedent, and it is otherwise sound.



[RJ] Yes it is informal as RFC3455 is I'll change that.



Major issues:



This document doesn't include enough information for me to some of the headers.  For example, there isn't enough information in the document to allow me to interpret the contents of cgi-3gpp:

          cgi-3gpp     = "cgi-3gpp" EQUAL (token / quoted-string)

(I pick on P-Access-Network-Info, because I'm somewhat familiar with it.)



This can probably be addressed by the inclusion of appropriate normative references.  I seem to recall there being a 3GPP TS that covered at least some of these.


[RJ] Below that section we have the text:
The access-info MAY contain additional information relating to the access network. The values for "cgi-3gpp", "utran-cell-id-3gpp",
       "i-wlan-node-id", "dsl-location" and "ci-3gpp2", "ci-3gpp2-femto" and  "gstn-location" are defined in 3GPP TS 24.229

Do we need more?



Minor issues:



RFC 4244 is now obsolete, see 7044.  (related nit: Change log entry #2 seems quite defensive, unnecessarily so.  This document only needs to define P-Called-Party-ID, and reference History-Info as an alternative

mechanism.)



[RJ] Replaced

[RJ] Due to your comment I have removed the whole text as follows:
Additionally the P-Called-Party-ID
       header field has been defined within 3GPP systems since release
       5, and therefore it is realistic to expect implementations to be
       already released to the field.  It is therefore considered that
       replacement of the P-Called-Party-ID header field within 3GPP
       systems causes more issues that it solves, and therefore the
       update of RFC3455 <xref
         target="RFC3455"></xref> to remove the P-Called-Party-ID header field
       will not be addressed.  However it is recommended that any new
       usage of this type of functionality should use the History-Info

       header field defined in RFC 7044 <xref target="RFC7044"></xref>rather than the P-Called-Party-ID header field





Change log entry #5, mentions a shortcoming of 3455 (no registry for access network types), but the draft does nothing about it.  It seems to be propagating the mistake it notes.



[RJ] Yes I can agree this. so this seems a action for future.



A lot has happened since RFC 3455 was published.  The privacy considerations around the use of P-Access-Network-Info are unchanged from their pre-Geopriv form.  In particular, I find the UA knowledge part to be problematic; Geopriv definitions can probably help here.



[RJ] sorry cannot do





S6.1 P-Associated-URI is a powerful linkability vector, which could be a far more serious privacy leak than the text implies.  The following seems like good advice, but is not sufficient:



   An eavesdropper could possibly collect the list of identities a user

   is registered.  This can have privacy implications.  To mitigate this

   problem, this extension SHOULD only be used in a secured environment,

   where encryption of SIP messages is provided either end-to-end or

   hop-by-hop.



You also have to trust the other end of the hop with the information.

I think that's implicit, but probably needs to be stated.



[RJ] I have addedthe following:

And where a trustrelationship equivalent with that defined in RFC 3325 <xref target="RFC3325">between entities exist





S6.4  This claim sounds false to me:



   However, there

   are no security problems resulting from a UA inserting incorrect

   information.  Networks providing services based on the information

   carried in the P-Access-Network-Info header field will therefore need

   to trust the UA sending the information.  A rogue UA sending false

   access network information will do no more harm than to restrict the

   user from using certain services.



Any parameter whereby changing it can cause loss of service is likely to be true in the inverse.  The draft makes no claims that would make me believe otherwise.



[RJ] Since we have the P-Access-Network-Info as header that is also set up by the IMS entity P-CSCF with adding the network provided element there is a difference in interpreting the header by Applications. Of course the network provided information is trustful and can be used for sensitive services since the user provided information should only be used by services which are not sensitive.



[RJ] Is this sufficient?





Nits/editorial comments:



S1 Having the disclaimer as the first section is a little strange.  I don't know what it is disclaiming yet.



[RJ] That is a copy from RFC3455. RFC3455 fullfills the requirements documented in RFC4083. Would this be sufficient to write as a one sentence statement?





S1, S3 It looks like a few characters are missing from these sections:

"trust.These", "environment The", "[RFC3455]   This"



[RJ] Done



The change log contains a lot of normative language.  I expected to see pointers to changes, and maybe some justification, but items include normative-sounding text and no pointers(7), other contain pointers and duplicate text (3&4)



[RJ] tried to solve this. deleted normative text and made some corrections to your points.



Change log #6 notes the removal of a field; given that this is extensible, why not just mark the CDMA 2000 item deprecated instead of removing it?

[RJ] As far as I know is that 3GPP does not want to use it anymore. Is it not sufficent to not the deletion?


Best Regards

Roland

Von: Mary Barnes [mailto:[e-mail]]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. April 2014 01:08
An: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Cc: Atle Monrad; Gonzalo Camarillo; Richard Barnes
Betreff: Fwd: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13

Can you guys please respond to Martin's review?  This document is on the IESG telechat agenda for tomorrow.  Honestly, you guys cannot complain that IETF is not doing work in a timely manner if authors cannot respond to reviews like this, especially at this stage of the game.

I will note that I haven't seen all the messages around these reviews because people don't usually add the shepherd and I don't seem to be being picked up by any aliases.

Regards,
Mary.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Thomson <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-drage-sipping-rfc3455bis-13
To: Jari Arkko <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> Review Team" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, IESG IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
On 9 April 2014 05:41, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Have there been any responses or changes based on your comments? I do not see the document version having changed...
I have seen no response or revision.