Re: [Insipid] Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-07

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 6/14/17 3:18 PM, Vijay K. Gurbani wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I was asked by the authors to review
> draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-07.  My review is below.
> 
> Summary: good stuff, but some issues need to be addressed as documented
> next.
> 
> MAJOR:
> 
> - S3.2: So, it appears from the last sentence that "log me" is scoped by
>    the dialogue.  If through some configuration, a SIP UA is configured
>    to insert the "logme" parameter, then the UA will continue inserting
>    the parameter for all dialogues created by the UA until configured to
>    stop inserting the parameter, right?
> 
>    If so, then the scope of the "logme" parameter is driven by
>    configuration more than a dialogue.  This should be made clear in the
>    text, as there are many places that state that "logme" is scoped to a
>    dialogue (S6.4.5, for instance).
> 
>    I believe this is an important aspect to clarify: Is the "logme"
>    scoped by a dialogue or through configuration, as time limited as that
>    configuration may be?  My reading of the draft suggests that the
>    scoping is through configuration, and S6.4.5 appears to support this
>   (in my reading, at least).

I'm not an author, so this can be a test of how clear they have been.

IIUC, a given logme "session" is dialog scoped. (Though not exactly, 
since in the presence of B2BUAs it becomes a set of related dialogs.) 
This is identified by the SessionID. Those entities that did not 
initiate the logging need to keep state for that duration. And of course 
this then is tied to the resulting logs.

Some entities may also have some other state that causes them to 
initiate logging "sessions". The duration of that state is undefined.

Now the authors can say if I got it right.

	Thanks,
	Paul