Re: [Insipid] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-11

Hi Arun

Those changes look good to me.

Thanks

Stewart

On 04/01/2017 17:53, Arun Arunachalam (carunach) wrote:
> Hi Stewart,
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review !
>
> Please see inline and let us know your input.
>
>
>> On Jan 3, 2017, at 10:11 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-11
>> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
>> Review Date: 2017-01-03
>> IETF LC End Date: 2017-01-13
>> IESG Telechat date: unknown
>>
>> Summary: Ready with minor issue
>>
>> This is a well written document that describes a useful feature in
>> its intended purpose. However I could not help but think that it has
>> an inevitable alternate use in the observation of users. There is
>> guidance on how to prevent this, but that seems easily ignored. Thus
>> the guidance from Security Area review will be of particular importance.
>>
>> Major issues:
>>
>> None.
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>
>> 6.1.  Trust Domain
>>
>>    Since a "log me" marker may cause a SIP entity to log the SIP header
>>    and body of a request or response, the "log me" marker SHOULD be
>>    removed at a trust domain boundary.
>>
>>
>> SB> I am not convinced that SHOULD is strong enough given that the traffic
>> SB> is leaving the trust domain.
> We can change from SHOULD to MUST.
>
>
>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>
>>
>> 3.1.  Network Boundary
>>
>>    Figure 2 shows a network boundary between GW-A1
>>    in operator A's network and the SBC in operator B's network.  A
>>
>> SB> SBC needs expanding on first use.
>
> We will change it to “…and the Session Border Controller (SBC)…”.
>
>> ===================
>>
>>    [RFC5853] gives examples of manipulating signaling to prevent the
>>    sending network passing on sensitive information, for example
>>    topology hiding, or the receiving network protecting itself from
>>    signaling that is not under its control, for example protocol repair.
>>
>> SB> The last sentence does not scan well.
>
> We can rewrite this paragraph as follows:
>     
>     Topology hiding and protocol repair (see [RFC5853]) are two common
>     functions that manipulate signaling at the network boundary. These
>     functions are performed by SIP device types  (see [RFC7092]) such as
>     Session Border Controller and Interconnection Border Control Function (IBCF).
>    
>
>> ===================
>>
>>    o  REQ9: The "log me" marker mechanism SHOULD allow a SIP
>>       intermediary to request logging SIP requests and responses on
>>       behalf of the originating endpoint.  The typical use case for this
>>       requirement is for compatibility with UAs that have not
>>
>> SB> UA needs expanding on first use.
> We will change it to “….with User Agents (UA) that have not …"
>
> Thanks!
> Arun
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> insipid mailing list
>> insipid@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid