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

"Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <pgiralt@cisco.com> Thu, 18 August 2016 15:03 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 121D512DC8F; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 nvRMe4UXE8jg; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:03:26 -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 F3C7512DCFB; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10836; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1471532606; x=1472742206; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=qgjAF/IQWTF0ybavA/Ly7Ka8txnw9DuPTVI78Lfw/uc=; b=Qh8FVM5c/s1nY9mpgcYsVSN1j7+jTyzGwxDLqpdUniuUJMqd8g7sFxjP zVkitCfzaQESX+UtknJke8k7pgxMBOsYxoEoBgHBD/KfVO7ps9UNB2JGU lE0J5gAXZQ20hrF2L33VAjF1uUB9r62+ZPjLm4uAtQz/t6PpvwUcb02Lr A=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 842
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B0AgDGzLVX/40NJK1dgnVOgVIHslGCe?= =?us-ascii?q?IIPgX2GHQKBZzgUAgEBAQEBAQFeJ4ReAQEEAXkFCwIBCBguMiUCBA4FDogbCLt?= =?us-ascii?q?vAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBDg6GKoF4glWHbIIvBYgqkRoBgz2Bc4ltj?= =?us-ascii?q?0mMO4N3AR42ghIcF4E1boYufwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,539,1464652800"; d="asc'?scan'208,217";a="142750227"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 18 Aug 2016 15:03:24 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-019.cisco.com (xch-rtp-019.cisco.com [64.101.220.159]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7IF3NwX032170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:03:24 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-018.cisco.com (64.101.220.158) by XCH-RTP-019.cisco.com (64.101.220.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:03:23 -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; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:03:23 -0400
From: "Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <pgiralt@cisco.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-26: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHR+BY9xIffpVDqJ0+YO7L0tIxS0KBPFjCA
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:03:22 +0000
Message-ID: <4224D978-138E-453C-80E0-0DC62DEA8C2B@cisco.com>
References: <147139025342.19839.14606551168506879969.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3A0998BB-B2DC-45D3-B86E-F46405C284F5@cisco.com> <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643E3809D@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF643E3809D@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
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=_E023BA7A-0952-45B5-A5DC-FD5C2877C562"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/ZWMJsbdJXu3BwWpvP1qPsOV0dJo>
Cc: "insipid-chairs@ietf.org" <insipid-chairs@ietf.org>, "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-insipid-session-id@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Suresh Krishnan'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: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:03:28 -0000

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 2:37 PM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> * Section 5
>>> 
>>> I do have a concern about backward compatibility regarding the sess-uuid.
>>> Looks like this document allows the sess-uuid to contain either uppercase
>>> or lowercase hex digits ("sess-uuid           = 32(DIGIT / %x41-46 /
>>> %x61-66)") while the legacy version in RFC7329 does not allow uppercase
>>> hex digits. Looks like a compliant implementation of the spec using upper
>>> case hex digits will fail to interoperate with a legacy implementation. I
>>> do not have a particular preference, but either this rule needs to be
>>> tightened or there needs to be some text added to Section 11 to say this
>>> will cause an interoperability issue.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> This was a last-minute change made as a result of comments from Elwyn in gen-art review. The concern was that RFC 7329 specifies the identifier is lowercase, however it then points out:
>> 
>>   NOTE: The sess-id value is technically case-INSENSITIVE, but only
>>   lowercase characters are allowed.
>> 
>> This means that a complaint implementation of 7329 should treat the characters as case-INSENSITIVE and therefore not have a problem.
>> 
>> We could back out the change and require lower-case to ensure this is not an issue. It just seemed strange that we are requiring lower case while simultaneously saying that the case doesn’t actually matter, hence the change.
> 
> I think it would be better to back out the change and leave only the lower
> case in. No need to add any text about it being case-insensitive. This will
> allow the new implementations to be purely lowercase and be interoperable
> with the legacy implementations.


After thinking about this a bit more, I agree with this. I will switch back to lowercase only but without the case sensitivity text. As the previous draft only allows sending lower case, we should be fine.