Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-22
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 20:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 437D612DC8D; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZdnPwEureKbJ; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 50DF012D1C9; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.18] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4PKQIn2036887 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 May 2016 15:26:18 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.18]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Paul E. Jones" <paulej@packetizer.com>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:26:17 -0500
Message-ID: <0E21E24E-A9F8-4B45-BD4B-2581A0DD60AD@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <eme95b0680-96a9-4e4a-9910-a427d2fe4063@helsinki>
References: <eme95b0680-96a9-4e4a-9910-a427d2fe4063@helsinki>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/cIOJBZs2ylIdhZcEvtIK2ORJWOc>
Cc: insipid@ietf.org, draft-ietf-insipid-session-id.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-22
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:26:22 -0000
Okay, thanks! Ben. On 25 May 2016, at 15:10, Paul E. Jones wrote: > We've been formulating a reply. Coordination, time, etc. But, a > reply is coming very soon. > > Paul > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> > To: draft-ietf-insipid-session-id.all@ietf.org; insipid@ietf.org > Sent: 5/25/2016 3:57:28 PM > Subject: Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of > draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-22 > >> Authors, any thoughts on these? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ben. >> >> On 14 May 2016, at 19:46, Ben Campbell wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-22. I >>> have a >>> number of comments, and think that at least the "substantive" >>> comments >>> should be addressed prior to IETF last call. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Ben. >>> >>> ------------- Substantive Comments: >>> >>> - Abstract: The abstract makes it sound like the draft is >>> multi-protocol. It's not, it's SIP specific. I recognize the idea >>> is >>> that the syntax could be used across signaling protocols, but this >>> particular draft only defines how to do so for SIP. Please clarify. >>> >>> - General >>> >>> - 4.1, 2nd paragraph: Why is the requirement for version 4 or 5 >>> UUIDs >>> only a SHOULD? It seems like we should really avoid any sort of >>> persistent identifies in the UUID. If we really need the SHOULD, >>> please >>> describe when it might be reasonable to choose otherwise. >>> >>> - 4.2, 2nd paragraph: "such as when a UA first initiates a SIP >>> request," >>> >>> Should that be a SIP INVITE request, or SIP dialog-initiating >>> request? >>> >>> -- 2nd to last paragraph: Is there a normative statement elsewhere >>> than >>> devices other than conference-focuses MUST NOT reuse UUIDs? (Also, >>> the >>> MUST in this paragraph belongs with the section on MDUs. If this >>> text >>> means to simply point out that the MDU section has this >>> requirement, >>> then please state it descriptively here.) >>> >>> -- last paragraph: I'm a bit uncomfortable with making storage >>> completely out of scope, due to the potential "information-at-rest" >>> security or privacy implications. (I note that RFC7206 cites 6872 >>> for >>> this purpose). >>> >>> - 6, paragraph 8: Has the working group discussed the privacy >>> implications of requiring an endpoint to keep the same UUID after a >>> redirect, refer, or INVITE-with-replaces? It may be that the peer >>> and >>> intermediaries already know the source of the 2nd dialog is the >>> same >>> that of the first, but I think it's a topic that needs some mention >>> in >>> the text. >>> >>> -- paragraph 10: Both the MAY and MUST seem incorrect here. The MAY >>> is a >>> statement of fact, and the MUST is a description of rules elsewhere >>> in >>> the draft. I suggest using descriptive language for both. >>> >>> -7, first paragraph: Does the assumption of no "special treatment" >>> means >>> the intermediary passing the session-id unchanged? Removes it? >>> Either? >>> >>> -- 4th paragraph: What happens when a B2BUA that does not implement >>> session-id aggregates responses? If it passes through the peer >>> UUIDs >>> unchanged, does anything break? Can the UAC be misled about the >>> UUID of >>> the resulting peer? >>> >>> -- 3rd paragraph from end: I'm confused by "A non- redirected or >>> rejected response", since responses neither get redirected or >>> rejected. >>> Do you mean a redirection response or a rejection response? >>> (Perhaps >>> using response code classes would be more clear.) >>> >>> "MUST replace its own UUID" - In what message(s)? >>> >>> -- 2nd to last paragraph: Why are the SHOULDs not MUSTs? Can you >>> describe situations in which one might reasonably not follow the >>> SHOULDs? >>> >>> -- last paragraph: The first "MAY" seems like a statement of fact. >>> Is >>> the 2nd MAY appropriate? That is, intermediary allowed to _not_ do >>> this, >>> and let endpoints get out of sync? >>> >>> -8, last paragraph: Why is the SHOULD not a MUST? When might one >>> reasonably not follow it? >>> >>> -9, 2nd paragraph: Does this assume that the conference is new to >>> each >>> subsequent MCU? That is, one would never use this approach to >>> bridge two >>> existing conferences that already have their own UUIDs? >>> >>> - 10.3: Why doesn't the b2bua send a re-invite to update the uuid >>> as in >>> the next example? >>> >>> - 10.5: Please don't use the name of a trademarked, commercial >>> service >>> in an RFC. Can you recast this as a "web-based conference service"? >>> >>> Also, this should be clarified to be one of many ways to implement >>> this >>> use case, not necessarily a preferred way. (For example, endpoints >>> might initiate the INVITE requests toward the focus.) >>> >>> - 10.7, first bullet: It seems highly unlikely that a 3pcc server >>> would >>> not be dialog stateful. >>> >>> - 11: This section creates MUST level requirements for an >>> implementation >>> to be backwards compatible with a pre-standard, proprietary >>> version. >>> That seems to be a stretch. Did the working group really intend >>> that an >>> implementation could not choose not to implement this section? >>> >>> -- 4th bullet: Wny isn't the presence or absence of remote-uuid >>> sufficient for responses? >>> >>> -- 5th bullet: This seems out of place; it's about non-compliant >>> implementations of this document, not about backwards >>> compatibility. >>> >>> - 6th bullet: Why would an "old" implementation include >>> "remote-uuid" at >>> all? >>> >>> - 12, first paragraph: The MUST here seems to conflict with the >>> previous >>> SHOULD about using UUID versions other than 4 or 5. (see previous >>> comment). >>> >>> -- 3rd paragraph: Is there an impact if something tampers with or >>> lies >>> about session-Id values? >>> >>> - 15: Thank you for including this. >>> >>> Editorial Comments and Nits: >>> >>> -1, first paragraph: Please expand SIP on first mention. >>> >>> - 4.2, 4th paragraph: Please expand PBX on first mention. >>> >>> -- 2nd to last paragraph: This referes to conference focus, but >>> most of >>> the relevant section discusses MDUs. Please use consistent terms. >>> (either may be okay, but "focus" probably better captures the >>> signaling >>> vs media role.) >>> >>> -6, paragraph 9: What is meant by "negatively affect"? Is this >>> allowed >>> to affect the session in neutral or positive ways? >>> >>> -- paragraph 11: Consider s/"MUST take care to ensure"/"MUST >>> ensure". >>> The "take care" part softens the message. >>> >>> -- 2nd to last paragraph: Redundant normative statements. Consider >>> making the first one descriptive, since the second is the more >>> precise >>> of the two. (This pattern repeats in section 7 paragraph 7) >>> >>> - 7, 2nd paragraph: "which is why intermediaries" I think that's >>> one >>> reason why. There are likely others. >>> >>> -- 7th paragraph: "If an intermediary receives a SIP message >>> without a >>> Session-ID header field or valid header field value..." >>> >>> Does this mean either without session-id, or with session-Id but >>> without >>> a valid value? (As worded, the second part reads like it means >>> without >>> any valid header fields, but that doesn't make sense.) >>> >>> -8, first paragraph: This seems redundant to previous sections. >>> >>> 10.1, paragraph before SIP detail: It's not really complete if you >>> omit >>> stuff :-) >>> >>> 10.3: There's no description of the initial re-invite. >>> >>> 11, paragraph 5: It's not clear what "that" refers to. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> insipid mailing list >>> insipid@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid
- [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid-ses… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid… Paul E. Jones
- Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid… Paul Giralt (pgiralt)
- Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid… Paul Giralt
- Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid… Paul Giralt (pgiralt)