[Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-07: comments

Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com> Thu, 25 August 2016 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <brett@broadsoft.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 116BB12D08F for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 06:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=broadsoft-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 9lK4uTMmklwU for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 06:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC16312D0B5 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 06:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id g62so34188067lfe.3 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 06:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadsoft-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vgAXg17tk4uqJAvBQkfQy0q1bHfSjrXi8iSJPB0bB74=; b=YGElDNluju22EUHoJ6HwGL4qMJLzTzc2eYOIjdts6663NeD+V146j9SGZmE5v8EpwI t6N1EAsOEIn5TdFqd8eV/wm7evfbsHki9G1TtI59+UwW25NqIMsP6X0UjBxPk1ssY+rg sadRtjr6eypzOy79DHf7fypLib5DJBos9Bl2sSzCrxaSzlWmY1hHQFcb5QVJpLwZNytz ZhCzjXVSoAYsW4Cr6oRgJhu8gOU/+tUzjWU2yRM00Udofn1YGBx1sBaet8m4UW/DXdoG WNPOxGBYX/Is4gkZdbS5uLtSL5rt37/kHjzq5ywgqnLoSLK/dipw3rufJL/iFnaZ3Nkk maRg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=vgAXg17tk4uqJAvBQkfQy0q1bHfSjrXi8iSJPB0bB74=; b=NvgrHw/ThOY44dwMigJoIxwm01AwYAW5dZRh3Uulei1Goq8kELgYmg6iaNOnb6uKTL VTUGGXoxFBcMR+YYYPXMqmc2wQvjo31uxohFhQnpi2lEUSCC5HaB1NEutx7a6cTDevxN PLRtDrI6+1m2NrXBFj6j/Ri4vywFbC9aNlE1bZLU6kN9II2jlu2ngDP6gwszlS9w5eGf I0htVgC6EWlN1sY7lpC6bJ5oY21ihGQcwgzCt6V47FeTkMU5+mzXBU9LyoPhO3Yyo0Gr DgpdXEKmRGcKRMQhqDgNQXmAwOMPd9mqRtIMGMkmVFKSCcboCOevnpFV38UnBfir5pYB oCEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMd5ajw6g3cSJ1eTwJrMusO0+bfq0re/P9YAUmQfhDNFDscKBQnDlNrQv4NTQH/KoaYlOax/ernZ+wO0Zzi
X-Received: by 10.25.161.76 with SMTP id k73mr2634770lfe.26.1472130655827; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 06:10:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdH+0g3Qg0gFEARlQCS+NNcQWc0bWA==
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:10:50 -0400
Message-ID: <ae0ea4537218957675fac8f5cf11541d@mail.gmail.com>
To: draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs@tools.ietf.org, insipid@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/PQ0Q9b9MeYM22ctPcOLDI4U_mFA>
Subject: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-07: comments
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: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:11:00 -0000

Hi,

The following are some comments concerning
draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-07.

Thanks,
Brett

------

1) Section 4 paragraph 1 indicates "Header fields MUST be logged in their
long form and not the compact form described in RFC 3261 [RFC3261] clause
7.3.3".  The mandate should potentially be downgraded to a SHOULD since
unable to comply when it is an unknown header.  For instance as new
headers as defined with a compact form, deployed devices become
non-compliant until upgraded or configured to know the compact/long form
of the header name.  If it matters (and the mandate makes it harder to
find the bug), the use of the compact form might be exposing a bug on the
particular device.

2) References to draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-12 should be updated to the
latest version of the draft.