[Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-07.txt

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Tue, 10 April 2012 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 B785321F8547; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 04:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.027
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.027 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.728, BAYES_00=-2.599, MANGLED_SAVELE=2.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sWIFZRPMLehq; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 04:34:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9BF21F8514; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 04:34:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1334057544; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=jW7uXFnN/5roD4VDP1gr0T2UaWVBQSPPajt8GUxYAjI=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=dI+cNtJ5RccfQdibnvZBWLug9TM8BMTYs8pQSlAltbQhsbLclr6RnaVqHMBlXV4mNFfK8N Y0p3tIdto+G56ZJRx0SgwvATLIrimLRMGBmTJ4azSVs0U3PqgBRB05qzwnsl6AqmwmRxFu dNfrPkXPkRPkwTT2OJ/Q1ni3y4hV3iA=;
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <T4QaRwAg2z0T@rufus.isode.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:32:24 +0100
X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: PIPELINING
Message-ID: <4F840F94.1080703@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:46:44 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
References: <CAHBDyN6PN-vp9wXo6fF8G4VfODXjkfbWBaJN8EPopeWfOg9PmQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBDyN6PN-vp9wXo6fF8G4VfODXjkfbWBaJN8EPopeWfOg9PmQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-Art review of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-07.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: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:34:24 -0000

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-ietf-sipcore-rfc3265bis-07.txt
Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
Review Date: 10-April-2012
IETF LC End Date: past
IESG Telechat date: 26-April-2012

Summary: This documents is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard 
RFC (with nits). But please see a couple of questions below.


3.2.1.  Identification of Reported Events, Event Classes, and Current
         State

    When present, the body of the NOTIFY request MUST be formatted into
    one of the body formats specified in the "Accept" header field of the
    corresponding SUBSCRIBE request.  This body will contain either the
    state of the subscribed resource or a pointer to such state in the
    form of a URI (see Section 5.4.13).

Nit: or the default according to the event package definition, if no Accept
header field was specified.

Also, it might be good to reference RFC 3986 for URIs here.



4.1.1.  Detecting Support for SIP Events

    The extension described in this document does not make use of the use
    of "Require" or "Proxy-Require" header fields; similarly, there is no

Nit: too many "use of".

    token defined for "Supported" header fields.  Potential subscribers
    may probe for the support of SIP Events using the OPTIONS request
    defined in [RFC3261].

4.1.3.  Receiving and Processing State Information

    To prevent spoofing of events, NOTIFY requests SHOULD be
    authenticated, using any defined SIP authentication mechanism.

Minor: How can this SHOULD be satisfied? Any reference which might be 
appropriate here?

4.2.1.3.  Authentication/Authorization of SUBSCRIBE Requests

    SIP authentication mechanisms are discussed in [RFC3261].  Note that,
    even if the notifier node typically acts as a proxy, authentication
    for SUBSCRIBE requests will always be performed via a "401" response,
    not a "407;" notifiers always act as a user agents when accepting

Nit: Is the ";" after "407" a typo?

    subscriptions and sending notifications.


4.4.4.  Allow-Events header field usage

    The "Allow-Events" header field does not include a list of the etvent

  typo: event

    template packages supported by an implementation.  If a subscriber
    wishes to determine which event template packages are supported by a
    notifier, it can probe for such support by attempting to subscribe to
    the event template packages it wishes to use.

Can you clarify how such request would look like? An example would be nice.

5.4.3.  SUBSCRIBE Request Bodies

    It is expected that most, but not all, event packages will define
    syntax and semantics for SUBSCRIBE request bodies; these bodies will
    typically modify, expand, filter, throttle, and/or set thresholds for
    the class of events being requested.  Designers of event packages are
    strongly encouraged to re-use existing MIME types for message bodies
    where practical.

Nit: MIME types are now called "media types" in more recent IETF RFCs.
I would recommend pointing to the Media Type Registration Procedure 
document [RFC 4288] here, which points to the IANA registry.

5.4.5.  NOTIFY Request Bodies

    Event packages also MUST define which MIME type is to be assumed if
    none are specified in the "Accept" header field of the SUBSCRIBE
    request.

The same nit as above.

7.2.  Reason Codes

    This document further defines "reason" codes for use in the
    "Subscription-State" header field (see Section 4.1.3).

    Following the policies outlined in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
    Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226], new reason codes require a
    Standards Action.

Minor: This would prevent registration of new Reason Codes in an 
Experimental RFC (for example). I would like to double check that that 
is intentional.

    Registrations with the IANA include the reason code being registered
    and a reference to a published document which describes the event
    package.  Insertion of such values takes place as part of the RFC
    publication process or as the result of inter-SDO liaison activity.

I don't think Standards Action allows for "inter-SDO liaison activity", 
unless such documents from other SDOs are published as Standard Track 
RFCs. So I find your text confusing: either your registration procedure 
should also allow for direct IESG approvals (to allow registrations from 
other SDOs with no RFCs), or you should remove "as the result of 
inter-SDO liaison activity".

    New reason codes must conform to the syntax of the ABNF "token"
    element defined in [RFC3261].

8.4.  Augmented BNF Definitions

    event-type        =  event-package *( "." event-template )

Minor: Does this mean that multiple template packages can be applied?
Is there any ordering for them? How would "foo.A.B" differ from "foo.B.A"?


Nit: id-nits complains:

   -- Duplicate reference: RFC4660, mentioned in 'RFC4660', was also 
mentioned
      in 'RFC 4660'.

"[RFC 4660]" reference is used in section 7.2.