Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Tue, 27 January 2015 19:09 UTC
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD941A1B4F for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:09:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 elaV2sl-v7tf for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (smtp02.uc3m.es [163.117.176.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F1B31A1BDD for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:09:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp02.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB721982608; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:09:46 +0100 (CET)
X-uc3m-safe: yes
X-uc3m-safe: yes
Received: from acorde (acorde.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cjbc@smtp02.uc3m.es) by smtp02.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BDD39982606; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:09:46 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <1422385786.24619.1.camel@it.uc3m.es>
From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <schmidt@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:09:46 +0100
In-Reply-To: <54C7E088.6020102@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
References: <1406307002.10492.15.camel@acorde.it.uc3m.es> <6a8b56a123154be2a448292dde8aa4d5@HUB02.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de> <54C6074B.9030405@fu-berlin.de> <1422385001.2887.45.camel@it.uc3m.es> <54C7E088.6020102@informatik.haw-hamburg.de>
Organization: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1224-7.5.0.1018-21288.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--24.183-7.0-31-1
X-imss-scan-details: No--24.183-7.0-31-1
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/IASLbIH8Pr1SWOZQpzY9jAwAKq8>
Cc: "p2psip-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <p2psip-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "p2psip@ietf.org" <p2psip@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: cjbc@it.uc3m.es
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:09:52 -0000
Thanks! On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 20:01 +0100, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > yes, will be finished tonight. I've just a few steps to complete ... > > Thomas > > On 27.01.2015 19:56, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Can you please post a revised version of the draft including these > > changes. > > > > Carlos > > > > On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 10:22 +0100, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: > >> Hi Roland, > >> > >> apologies for the very late pick-up of the subject. > >> > >> Please see answers inline: > >> > >> On 06.09.2014 01:46, Roland Bless wrote: > >> > >>> I carefully read the document and didn't find any real show stoppers, > >>> but IMHO the document would benefit from some clarifications > >>> as indicated below. > >>> > >>> Major: > >>> - Normally a SIP registration times out after some period > >>> (usually given in the REGISTER message) > >>> I guess that the mechanism is replaced in P2PSIP by the > >>> lifetime parameter in the StoredData. If this is the case > >>> I'd like to see it mentioned explicitly. > >>> > >> > >> Yes, you are right. We added in Section 3.1: > >> > >> "Note that > >> the registration lifetime known from the regular SIP REGISTER method > >> is inherited from the lifetime attribute of the basic RELOAD > >> StoredData structure (see Section 7 in [RFC6940])." > >> > >>> - It is unclear how SIP and SIPS should be realized, because > >>> AppAttach only allows to create DTLS/UDP or TLS/TCP connections > >>> (cf. OverlayLinkType in IceCandidate). > >>> "Once the AppAttach succeeds, the peer sends plain or (D)TLS encrypted > >>> SIP messages over the connection as in normal SIP." > >>> Sending "plain" (I guess non-secured) SIP message is not possible > >>> if AppAttach doesn't allow for UDP-only connections. > >>> > >> > >> This may be somewhat confusing: Plain SIP sends SIP messages "plainly" > >> over transport, while SIPS requires the presence of transport layer > >> security. As the current Reload Link Layer is built on (D)TLS secure > >> Internet transport, there is actually always some transport layer > >> security established within the KBR region. However, this should not > >> prevent users to make "plain SIP" calls using plain SIP URIs, and SIPS > >> requires end-to-end transport security that include endpoint > >> certificates and protected links to clients. > >> > >> We've added the following clarification: > >> > >> "It is noteworthy that according to [RFC6940] all overlay links are > >> built on (D)TLS secured transport. While hop-wise encrypted paths > >> does not prevent the use of plain SIP, SIPS requires end-to-end > >> protection that may include client links and endpoint certificates." > >> > >> > >> > >>> - I guess that the destination list should contain only > >>> NodeIDs, or are ResourceIds and OpaqueIDs also permitted? > >>> If not, then the calling/initiating peer should check > >>> that condition and some action must be defined if the > >>> destination list is non-conforming (maybe discard > >>> this destination list) > >>> > >>> - The Draft should clearly specify how to map AORs > >>> to Resource-IDs as required by RFC6940, sec. 5.2: > >>> o Define how the Resource Name is used to form the Resource-ID where > >>> each Kind is stored. > >>> I guess that the AOR is mapped by using the overlay hash function > >>> after stripping the scheme (like sip:, sips:) from it. But that > >>> should be defined explicitly. > >>> > >>> Minor: > >>> Sec. 1: > >>> - Several different notations like 'Node-ID "1234"', Node-ID 1234 > >>> or ID 1234 are used in this section. > >>> > >>> Sec. 2: > >>> OLD: include the scheme (e.g sip:) as the AOR needs to match the > >>> NEW: include the scheme (e.g. sip:) as the AOR needs to match the > >>> > >>> Sec. 3.3: > >>> > >>> o A Store is permitted only for AORs with domain names that fall > >>> into the namespaces supported by the RELOAD overlay instance. > >>> > >>> and then > >>> > >>> Before issuing a Store request to the overlay, any peer SHOULD verify > >>> that the AOR of the request is a valid Resource Name with respect to > >>> its domain name and the namespaces defined in the overlay > >>> configuration document (see Section 3.4). > >>> > >>> the first formulation suggests that the latter quotation should use > >>> rather MUST than SHOULD (the Storing Peer MUST also verify this). > >>> > >>> Before a Store is permitted, the storing peer MUST check that: > >>> > >>> o The AOR of the request is a valid Resource Name with respect to > >>> the namespaces defined in the overlay configuration document. > >>> > >>> What would be the proper reaction if this condition is not fulfilled? > >>> I guess a StoreAns with Error_Forbidden, but that could/should also be > >>> mentioned. > >>> > >>> Sec. 5.1: > >>> > >>> the responding peer MUST present a certificate with a Node-ID > >>> matching the terminal entry in the route list. > >>> > >>> route list wasn't introduced before and I guess destination list > >>> would be the right term here. Moreover, what is the reaction if > >>> there is a certificate mismatch, i.e., the Node-ID doesn't match > >>> the one in the certificate? Should the connection be torn down? > >>> > >>> Sec. 5.2: > >>> typo > >>> OLD: that want to assure maintanance of sessions individually need to > >>> NEW: that want to assure maintenance of sessions individually need to > >>> > >>> Sec. 6: > >>> GRUUs in RELOAD are constructed by embedding a > >>> base64-encoded destination list in the gr URI parameter of the GRUU. > >>> > >>> I guess that the destination list is encoded in the same way as > >>> described in section 6.3.2.2. of RFC 6940. Simply a list of > >>> Destination entries without any preceding length field?! > >>> > >>> Sec. 7: > >>> > >>> > >>> sip_registration_route > >>> > >>> a destination list which can be used to reach the user's peer. > >>> > >>> if there are any restrictions like only Node-IDs allowed or the > >>> last entry must be a Node-ID, no Resource-IDs allowed, that could > >>> be mentioned here, too. > >>> > >>> Sec. 8: > >>> > >>> What about destination lists that contain back and forth routes > >>> like 1234 5678 1234 5678 1234 4444 5678 1234 7777? > >>> This may be used for traffic amplification as mentioned in > >>> sec. 13.6.5. of the RELOAD spec. Therefore, an additional > >>> check at the StoreReq receiving node may be useful, even > >>> if destination lists are checked by RELOAD. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Roland > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> P2PSIP mailing list > >>> P2PSIP@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > >>> >
- [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13 Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13 Roland Bless
- Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13 Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13 Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC for draft-ietf-p2psip-sip-13 Thomas C. Schmidt