IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Insipid] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-12: (with COMMENT)

"Arun Arunachalam (carunach)" <carunach@cisco.com> Wed, 15 August 2018 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <carunach@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 CF74C131113; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 KkYh8w7KrWxx; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4946B1310F2; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 13:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2822; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1534363353; x=1535572953; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=SDBV2ovjDJ3UFHdacyeebQzhqVkmR8svRHogvmfq/Hc=; b=Vhm1TcVoY4u2gnnciSxxzU84CrV2Lzvv79YlYLn7/IhheqAhEMZIw6RS EExmbI7vAU0hvGXtD010RkPInYQs/4D0QF2n71VZK3C1Yxb7IdgzTftaR bQ7rFD2xDMxQ/eXMHbvq/pTAYSRhAt4sbYH8LYq2ZErHQm75SPJhGsfBu 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BRAgC4hXRb/40NJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYMgBSqBYigKg2OICowzgg2DPZJWgXoLhGwCF4MdITQYAQIBAQIBAQJtKIU3AQEBAwEjEUUFCwIBCBgCAiYCAgIwFQULAgQOBYMigXoIq1GBLophgQuICReCAIESJx+CTIFBgVoEgV+DATGCJAKSOogxCQKPWRWBOoQuiESCBZB1AhEUgSQdOIFScBVlAYI+gjEcaQEIjRRvAY0NgRsBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,244,1531785600"; d="scan'208";a="441795324"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Aug 2018 20:02:32 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (xch-rcd-007.cisco.com [173.37.102.17]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w7FK2WYl012134 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 Aug 2018 20:02:32 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:02:31 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-015.cisco.com ([173.36.7.25]) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com ([173.36.7.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 15 Aug 2018 15:02:31 -0500
From: "Arun Arunachalam (carunach)" <carunach@cisco.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
CC: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, "insipid-chairs@ietf.org" <insipid-chairs@ietf.org>, "Dawes, Peter, Vodafone Group" <Peter.Dawes@vodafone.com>, "Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)" <gsalguei@cisco.com>, "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking@ietf.org>, "Arun Arunachalam (carunach)" <carunach@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-12: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHUMyIQufWiNrYZ3kGUjyjiwD4AgKS/qiyAgAAgVQCAAFsngIAAKVYAgAFEWgA=
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 20:02:31 +0000
Message-ID: <F99EC552-3FD3-4C89-81F0-874F51EE316E@cisco.com>
References: <153417744610.24989.8583018232862453031.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <47069B3D-25CE-409F-9099-E235D656C498@cisco.com> <a7811c35-2843-1b8b-1862-4fe7e0abe69a@kuehlewind.net> <CBE69AF1-8AFC-4FC2-898A-0D70B96BE009@cisco.com> <7AFAB733-8272-4F12-8811-B6BF7489AC8E@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7AFAB733-8272-4F12-8811-B6BF7489AC8E@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.150.54.205]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0EBA10D2ECFDFF4482DA8F3F78E0E83D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.17, xch-rcd-007.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/O62WI_sk84KLtlQkIxe5hGxuVdw>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-12: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 15 Aug 2018 20:02:47 -0000

Thanks Ben.

We will remove this statement.

Arun

> On Aug 14, 2018, at 8:41 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 14, 2018, at 5:13 PM, Arun Arunachalam (carunach) <carunach=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> A couple of quick comments/questions:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) How do you know that both endpoints are "log me" enabled? I guess because of
>>>>> the requirement that all messages of a dialog must have the marker, you cannot
>>>>> just add it and see if the other end is able to apply it to its responses…?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It is not possible for the originating endpoint to determine whether the terminating endpoint or intermediary supports “log me” prior to setting up a dialog.
>>>> 
>>>> If the originating endpoint sent an INVITE with logme marker and received a provisional or final response with logme marker then it can infer that one or more of the intermediaries in the call signaling path (or) the terminating endpoint supports "log me".
>>> 
>>> Okay, this does makes sense to me, however, it is a bit contradicting to the normative requirement in Section 3.2:
>>> "If a request or response is "log me" marked, then all re-transmissions of the request or response MUST be similarly "log me" marked. “
>> 
>> 
>> We are trying to better understand this comment specifically how it contradicts. The purpose of the above sentence was to address a scenario in which a SIP message with “log me” marker is sent over UDP and it gets re-transmitted. This sentence was added to make sure that the re-transmitted message also had the “log me” marker. Please explain.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Hi Arun,
> 
> I apologize that I missed this in previous reviews--but such a normative statement as in section 3.2 is unnecessary and redundant. That’s just the way SIP works. A retransmission is a retransmission of the _same_ request for purposes of UDP reliability.
> 
> This is in contrast with sending new messages associated with the dialog.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email