Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-11

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review result: Has Nits

After getting over my initial reaction that was something like
"srsly!? we're going to standardize the exact opposite of 'do not
track'", I realized that this is a requirements draft for an IETF
approved WG and a chartered work item of that WG :)

0) s3.2: Is the intent to define a protocol mechanism to determine if
the two or domains are part of the same trust domain?  This
requirement could be achieved by saying out-of-band bilateral
agreements are the mechanism to establish the domain.

1) s5.1: REQ1 - Did you mean to say "using SIP standard logging
format"?  Is there another logging format other than SIP CLF?

2) s5.1: Should the must be MUST in the following:

  All log retrieval mechanisms must adhere to
  authorization and privacy protection policies
  set forth by the network administrator.

3) s5.2: REQ3 seems odd to me - Isn't this kind of like a SIP thing? 
I mean if SIP doesn't allow adding new headers then didn't somebody
sink your battleship?  But SIP does allow you to add arbitrary headers
so I think I'm missing something as to why this is needed?

4) s5.2: REQ3 - Reads a bit awkward to me how about:

  It MUST be possible to mark a SIP request or response for
  logging by inserting a "log me" marker.

i.e., remove "of interest"

5) s5.2: REQ4 - Again this seems like a basic SIP thing - I mean are
there fields that SIP requires be stripped?

6) Is there a missing requirement based on the security considerations
that requires the this marker MUST be removed at the earliest
opportunity if it has been incorrectly inserted?