[Insipid] draft-dawes-dispatch-logme-reqs-02 (repost to insipid)

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 23 July 2013 02:50 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 6918711E8183 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4ugbtigYgifB for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702AF21F894E for <insipid@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 19:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.89]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 3ef81m0051vXlb85EeqiP7; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:50:42 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 3eqi1m00e3ZTu2S3deqig3; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:50:42 +0000
Message-ID: <51EDEF82.3060908@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:50:42 -0400
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1374547842; bh=T+yOUG97OBXeXElL3lc+JWQQr5cc0Ot7IOq/nK9KNmQ=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=DgUJBboTeQmFli19Bx8Rn9NkhjTlg+nUZLwQ+Ladv5zUirWS44gIbKfFHvOcIVsFH oKhoQelN99saAap6UP7lsnjVOYCINKkqmuMJLJa41inW5QGY4F7yt9y0cEJwOQC3yH S9TTq5u62CK7sacoK1IKVZwaSx8ryTP+nO3rSayY3D5F62CnmId1tzyF5sE3bMyZ2V deiUiUXX0/A71V+XBStLSkkOZc4vzbWCv1RUYdT7y+85H1jtMoEHolX6ytkupsZT7e nowSGGeOkOESbuuHnemhllgcSMgmtvw6ZQG8peMV5lSZdQ3pbS6u5pAq24F/IUpYMz lCUoGWF/ybIUg==
Subject: [Insipid] draft-dawes-dispatch-logme-reqs-02 (repost to insipid)
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 02:50:52 -0000

Some questions about this draft:

The requirements and other discussion imply certain behavior by servers 
that support this. I'd like to hear more explicit discussion of what 
that expected behavior is, within the potential solutions.

E.g., when some servers are expected to be dialog stateful. Also if 
logging is to stop after some period of time.

Section 7.1:

This says the header is first inserted by the UAC. There might be reason 
to have it inserted by the UAS in some cases, or even a proxy or B2BUA 
based on policy for debugging a UA that can't be controlled.

Is free text good enough for identifying test cases? Isn't there 
possibility of collision? Since there is likely to be resistance to 
meaningful names that might tunnel information, perhaps these should be 
random numbers.

I want to hear more about sending the address of the server collecting 
logs. For this to be useful there must be an explicit or implicit 
protocol used to transmit the logs. Is there one such protocol or many? 
If many, how do you know which will be supported? What about trust by 
the server doing the logging of the log server, and authorization by the 
log server of those sending logs? Will all servers doing logging want to 
use a server chosen by the one inserting the logme request?

Section 7.2:

Where does the test case id go with this solution?

In Figure 3 the call-info in the figure is syntactically incorrect. The 
parameter is a domain name, but it is required to be a URL.

	Thanks,
	Paul