Re: [Insipid] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <pgiralt@cisco.com> Wed, 17 August 2016 16:03 UTC

Return-Path: <pgiralt@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F01C12D8BB; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.769
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.769 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SQbM6qFOcEbR; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514BA12D61F; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 09:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3348; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471449827; x=1472659427; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=5TvLoU7kjbY7dXa/hV9nhKWUYkCc5htSvLy3FbUiLMY=; b=YbgUjmF+yr/wDeZkMmaa+MpT/EqTvEW39kWirJ7tw5G1oDYsReL4rnAR ACGFb30vK5EFLDSbJgQ+qDIdjnIQF75wGhVMIuaAjumQ846fMiNty3KRU SnsPUmWJW+N3DYCi7YnmqBJhcKubh0MW6FPSbD4Lo3FbeBGkO9u6F8q6m k=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 842
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AnAgATirRX/4MNJK1eg0SBUge3IYIPg?= =?us-ascii?q?X2GHQKBaTgUAgEBAQEBAQFeJ4ReAQEEASNWBQsCAQgYKgICMiUCBA4FDogbCK1?= =?us-ascii?q?CkBkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQ8OhiqBeIJVh0Ergi8FiCoMhx2JcQGDP?= =?us-ascii?q?YFziW2Ba4RciQKMO4N3AR42ghIcF4E1boV1fwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,529,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="142340599"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Aug 2016 16:03:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (xch-rtp-017.cisco.com [64.101.220.157]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7HG3jAL017004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:03:46 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-018.cisco.com (64.101.220.158) by XCH-RTP-017.cisco.com (64.101.220.157) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:03:45 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-018.cisco.com ([64.101.220.158]) by XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com ([64.101.220.158]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 12:03:45 -0400
From: "Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <pgiralt@cisco.com>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Thread-Topic: Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHR98z0yw3SCwXgGEGWQR1DRtj3RKBMr0qAgAC7kYCAACpwAA==
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:03:45 +0000
Message-ID: <A1D0D4E4-50A6-4D1E-8FC3-D95CB22615E4@cisco.com>
References: <147135877745.22972.7550246068971515295.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2377966D-0E2D-4C90-806A-8F82D8C2C33C@cisco.com> <2F31B653-D4EC-4662-9CF9-F219C037F062@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <2F31B653-D4EC-4662-9CF9-F219C037F062@cooperw.in>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.81.96.60]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1AF2106B-5C9D-4410-8677-0CB73936783E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/LdJuQ5z-UwWbyTtrvwHyZbuyTyo>
Cc: "insipid-chairs@ietf.org" <insipid-chairs@ietf.org>, "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@ietf.org>, "christer.holmberg@ericsson.com" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <insipid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/insipid/>
List-Post: <mailto:insipid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:03:50 -0000

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 9:31 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> == Section 6 ==
>>> 
>>> "It should be noted that messages received by an endpoint might
>>> contain a "local-uuid" value that does not match what the endpoint
>>> expected its peer's UUID to be.  It is also possible for an endpoint
>>> to receive a "remote-uuid" value that does not match its generated
>>> UUID for the session.  Either might happen as a result of service
>>> interactions by intermediaries and MUST NOT affect the communication
>>> session."
>>> 
>>> The MUST NOT at the end there is vague and also seems a bit contradictory
>>> to the statement in Section 4.2 that "How a device acting on Session
>>> Identifiers processes or utilizes the Session Identifier is outside the
>>> scope of this document." Could you clarify what the intent of the last
>>> sentence is, and how it squares with the idea that actions taken (or not
>>> taken) based on session identifiers are not being specified here?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The point of this statement is to ensure that no matter what is in a Session-Id header, it MUST NOT affect how the session is actually processed. We are basically saying we do not stipulate what a device does with the information contained in the Session-Id header, but the data (or lack of data) in the Session-Id header will not affect how the session is processed (e.g. a call would not be rejected because of invalid information in the Session-Id header).
>> 
>> Please let me know if you feel additional clarification is needed.
> 
> Ok, I think it would be clearer if it said “MUST NOT affect how the endpoint processes the session.”
> 
> Thanks,
> Alissa
> 

Ok - I like the wording. I will make the change.