Re: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-22
"Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <pgiralt@cisco.com> Wed, 25 May 2016 20:28 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 4E2DA12DCFE; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:28:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, 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 hNMtVes1J_VG; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34C0F12DD19; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:28:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9094; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464208110; x=1465417710; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ek3TvPPjuJLOdanHGLm8uOItZnpq1/Lo7qDwMRkeeUI=; b=K8QJ7YYmL49IGjOr++Vr7EBEunYvLL46Cvc1DS+VNKO6y02fPxy98+dq otfZBCXkfkAAPsskB8T2cUYPQ7p8IhEExKGaNQZipgvH+SU5J4ivakKHB qOwFTddLmpZsam8rfEdFW8MaLAFcl/+7/KRj0jAiuJxXEALcHzLj4eRKT s=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 842
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DfAgAsCkZX/40NJK1cgzdWfQa5cw6BeBcLhSVKAoFEOBQBAQEBAQEBZSeEQwEBAQMBAQEBIEUGCwULAgEIGCoCAicLJQIEDgUOiBkIDrFMkUoBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEOCQWGJ4F2CIJOhCkCgxUrgi4FiAQKhVeBMokgAYMqgWiJDYFphE+IZIYziRgBHgFDggYcgUtuiEkBBhkffwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,365,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="108195672"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 25 May 2016 20:28:29 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com (xch-rtp-018.cisco.com [64.101.220.158]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4PKSSAZ032000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 May 2016 20:28:28 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-018.cisco.com (64.101.220.158) by XCH-RTP-018.cisco.com (64.101.220.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:28:27 -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 15.00.1104.009; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:28:27 -0400
From: "Paul Giralt (pgiralt)" <pgiralt@cisco.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: [Insipid] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-22
Thread-Index: AQHRtr+vKVjxdiM8PEOFvYIZQTMt2Z/KXYcA
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:28:27 +0000
Message-ID: <8035B1A8-EC0A-4216-9FDE-349F0D56A289@cisco.com>
References: <D126986C-5821-4DD3-AB10-CD54B2387491@nostrum.com> <DD022B6D-38EC-4ED0-81CD-B737619CF37C@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <DD022B6D-38EC-4ED0-81CD-B737619CF37C@nostrum.com>
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=_2341DF57-4473-4597-A2AD-AA9836457803"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/hI8j-B1FR2A1w7XQEYLNPv5fYus>
Cc: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-insipid-session-id.all@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 20:28:35 -0000
Ben, Sorry for not replying earlier. I’m almost done with replies to all your questions. Should have a formal reply within a couple of days. -Paul > On May 25, 2016, at 3:57 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: > > 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 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)