Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-12: comments

"Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com> Fri, 23 January 2015 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <paulej@packetizer.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CEDD1A0074 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:30:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 9FUfVAQRCTlv for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dublin.packetizer.com (dublin.packetizer.com [75.101.130.125]) (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 8E82B1A006D for <insipid@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.20] (cpe-098-027-048-015.nc.res.rr.com [98.27.48.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by dublin.packetizer.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t0NNUeLa022629 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Jan 2015 18:30:42 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=packetizer.com; s=dublin; t=1422055842; bh=cRKjWPlFACVhnwumxzQlmbMJcEnxRSumA/iMY/97A4s=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Reply-To; b=gAGrHbRqUBYbAXEui2jI8FFLHP1eiGBedXEym7QcoWoPbxuN0F22xGh6XchIhA2c8 l9eBh0XvqaVjkRbVl+rTco1LlaK0CrmItzy+Wj01GwOUQRi4HbQd+u/04YGEbw2bZv 9taP7Gft8LxqvKEBL3C5P6yawpKCyQ04lqBkT0OE=
From: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
To: Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>, draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@tools.ietf.org, insipid@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:30:52 +0000
Message-Id: <em35cda631-4b12-47c9-8291-0026dfd80c20@sydney>
In-Reply-To: <707bca1afa0a844c47e746f3367bb22c@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.21372.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/VVf5w91AjAPUfoPfYU3pefV1FvU>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-12: comments
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 23:30:46 -0000

Brett,

OK.  I'll change it.  Like you, I don't really have a strong preference. 
  I changed every instance of TCP to UDP.  That should do it.

Paul

------ Original Message ------
From: "Brett Tate" <brett@broadsoft.com>
To: draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@tools.ietf.org; insipid@ietf.org
Sent: 1/23/2015 5:32:05 AM
Subject: RE: [Insipid] draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-12: comments

>Hi,
>
>Thanks for the response. Reply is inline.
>
>>  >>Section 9.1 F2, F3, and F5: Since UDP is the default transport,
>>  >>you might want to change the top Via's transport to be UDP
>>  >>within F2, F3, and F5.
>>  >
>>  >Unless there is a good reason to change these, I'd prefer
>>  >to leave them. UDP is still widely used, but TLS is also
>>  >extremely common. It's important that we don't have an error
>>  >here, of course. Any errors or just a preference for UDP.
>>
>>  Actually, that would be "TLS". Nonetheless, the question
>>  remains: is there a reason to change them to UDP? If we do,
>>  I'd prefer to change all references to UDP just so it's all
>>  consistent.
>
>I don't have a strong opinion on the topic. The selected transport from
>B2BUA to Bob violates the following SHOULD (assuming no reason to do
>otherwise).
>
>RFC 3263 section 4.1:
>
>"Otherwise, if no transport protocol is specified, but the TARGET is a
>numeric IP address, the client SHOULD use UDP for a SIP URI, and TCP
>for a SIPS URI. Similarly, if no transport protocol is specified,
>and the TARGET is not numeric, but an explicit port is provided, the
>client SHOULD use UDP for a SIP URI, and TCP for a SIPS URI. This is
>because UDP is the only mandatory transport in RFC 2543 [6], and thus
>the only one guaranteed to be interoperable for a SIP URI. It was
>also specified as the default transport in RFC 2543 when no transport
>was present in the SIP URI. However, another transport, such as TCP,
>MAY be used if the guidelines of SIP mandate it for this particular
>request. That is the case, for example, for requests that exceed the
>path MTU."
>
>Thanks,
>Brett
>
>--
>
>Meet with us at Mobile World Congress 2015
><http://www.broadsoft.com/news/mobile-world-congress/>
>
>This email is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is
>addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
>If
>you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in 
>error,
>please notify BroadSoft, Inc. immediately by replying to this message, 
>and
>destroy all copies of this message, along with any attachment, prior to
>reading, distributing or copying it.