[Insipid] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-12: (with COMMENT)

Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 13 August 2018 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietf.org
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B776130E06; Mon, 13 Aug 2018 09:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind?= <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking@ietf.org, insipid-chairs@ietf.org, gsalguei@cisco.com, insipid@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.83.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <153417744610.24989.8583018232862453031.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 09:24:06 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/uIiAVFUA8QB4JRdT-5dya_dlBRs>
Subject: [Insipid] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_dra?= =?utf-8?q?ft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-12=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:24:06 -0000

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


A couple of quick comments/questions:

1) How do you know that both endpoints are "log me" enabled? I guess because of
the requirement that all messages of a dialog must have the marker, you cannot
just add it and see if the other end is able to apply it to its responses...?

2) Sec 3.2: "firstly because it is configured to
   do so, or secondly because it has detected that a dialog is being
   "log me" marked, causing it to maintain state to ensure that all
   requests and responses in the dialog are similarly "log me" marked."
I was first quite confused by this sentence because I though the second case
meant that intermediates needs to ensure that all messages are marked
correctly. However, I guess the second case is when the other ends is
configured to do marking, one needs to reply with the marking as well. I think
I was mainly confused by the word "detects". Maybe it's worth to further
clarify this sentence...?

3) Section 4.6 feels a little misplace but I not sure where it belong otherwise
(maybe section 3 or 5?). Or maybe move section 4.5 in an own section later in
the doc...?

4) Also Section 4.6: "It MUST NOT forward the "log me" marker"
Does it mean an intermediate MUST remove the marker if an error is detected? Is
that safe given the proxy scenarios? If at all I would recommend to use MAY
here, I guess...

5) Sec 8.1.:
"An end user or network administrator MUST give permission for a
   terminal to perform "log me" marking in the context of regression
   testing or troubleshooting a problem. "
"The configuration of a SIP intermediary to perform
   "log me" marking on behalf of a terminal MUST be authorized by the
   network administrator."
I'm actually not sure what these normative sentences mean for an
implementation. Is this maybe rather "An implementation MUST provide a
configuration to active logging and logging MUST be disabled by default."?

6) Section 8.2:
"If SIP requests and responses are exchanged with an external network
   with which there is no agreement to pass "log me" marking, then the
   "log me" marking is removed."
Should this be normative, maybe:
"If SIP requests and responses are exchanged with an external network
   with which there is no agreement to pass "log me" marking, then the
   "log me" marking SHOULD be removed at the network border."

7) Also a related question: Should a network perform ingress filtering/removal
of "log me" markers?

8) Nit:
Sec 2: I guess the following sentence was coped and pasted from RFC8123 and
should be removed for this doc: "Rather than describing interoperability
   requirements, they are used to describe requirements to be satisfied
   by the "log me" marking solution."