Re: [Insipid] Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-02

Christer Holmberg <> Thu, 11 June 2015 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B3C1B3188 for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZeSQ7ggURvxP for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCA7E1B2CBF for <>; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f79b66d000001131-70-5579c17589a6
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 43.4E.04401.571C9755; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:12:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:12:20 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: "Dawes, Peter, Vodafone Group" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Insipid] Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-02
Thread-Index: AQHQoc9he4+R7vgLMUuxbp7avLo3752ltpKAgAFrcQCAAGyO4A==
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:12:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW7pwcpQg1V/BSzm33/GZNH38guT A5PHkiU/mTz6ZqxnDGCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MrY/mwtY8Fp0YqHPbdZGhiXC3YxcnJICJhI fLo4nxXCFpO4cG89WxcjF4eQwFFGiclHDzGDJIQEFjNKdL2N7GLk4GATsJDo/qcNEhYRSJM4 /30DO4gtLOAosbrvGAtE3EliSutdJhh78+6fYDUsAqoSR3euBqvhFfCVaL25jBFi1zZGiWuX j4Lt4hQIk/i8cCZYESPQQd9PrQEbxCwgLnHryXwmiEMFJJbsOc8MYYtKvHz8D+oBJYlFtz9D 1etJ3Jg6hQ3C1pZYtvA1M8RiQYmTM5+wTGAUnYVk7CwkLbOQtMxC0rKAkWUVo2hxanFSbrqR sV5qUWZycXF+nl5easkmRmCcHNzyW3UH4+U3jocYBTgYlXh4F7yuCBViTSwrrsw9xCjNwaIk zjtjc16okEB6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmrxIUYmDk6pBkad2jW1Ca5udz45FgoIHtN9/mbmcdd5 H769mVBi/MV59l3J+QfurNYKrgjdaJ5WdapnWdjhd+mmYVf+fvR51hchr2vh/Pzm9tdFH78Z /qgNOm456/2+o//8brY/9V98QuDZiadZt4QPLf10IUyet+N8QJGBeHgn7/kzKV6vuePFFUKq DzNuvWmqxFKckWioxVxUnAgAXVl/+XQCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Insipid] Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:12:25 -0000

Hi Peter,

See inline.

Q2 (editorial/technical):
>> I don't understand REQ4, saying "SIP entities SHOULD log SIP requests 
>> or responses with a "log me" marker."
>> Also, in e.g. REQ6 it is then said that proxies MAY insert the marker, 
>> which seems to contradict.
> REQ4 could be re-written slightly more clearly as "SIP entities SHOULD log SIP requests 
> or responses that contain a "log me" marker." The SIP entity checks for the presence of 
> a "log me" marker and writes any request or response that contains a "log me" marker 
> to a log file. 

I think it would be good to say "SIP entities that support the mechanism SHOULD...", to make it clear that we don't expect certain behaviour from SIP entities that do not support the mechanism. Some people may say it's obvious, but I think it's good to have it explicit :)

> REQ 6 allows a SIP proxy to insert a "log me" marker to allow the mechanism to work even if the UE 
> does not support this draft, so this talks about inserting a "log me" marker and not checking for its presence. 

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Q3 (editorial/technical):
>> Regarding REQ5, does that also apply to UAs that do NOT support the 
>> mechanism? If so, I think that should be explicitly stated, because it 
>> will have big impact on the technical solution.
> UEs that do not support the mechanism are not expected to echo the "log me" marker because
> they don't know about it. However, if the "log me" marker solution is a header field parameter 
> of the Session-ID header field, as currently proposed, then I guess that even UEs that do not 
> support inserting a "log me" marker will echo it if it echoes the whole Session-ID header field. 

Sure, but that is irrelevant as far as the requirements are concerned :)

So, if we don't REQUIRE anything from UAs that don't support the mechanism, I again think it's good to explicitly talk about UAs that support the mechanism.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: insipid [] On Behalf Of Georg 
> Mayer
> Sent: 8. kesäkuuta 2015 12:42
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: [Insipid] Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-02
> Hello,
> I finally managed to review draft-ietf-insipid-logme-reqs-02. I have 
> no technical comments on it and support all the requirements therein. 
> In my view the draft can progress as is.
> Cheers,
> Georg
> _______________________________________________
> insipid mailing list