Re: [salud] Christer's review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09

Laura Liess <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com> Tue, 21 January 2014 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: salud@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E665B1A00B1 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:54:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 El0dMfudIhfA for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:54:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F46E1A009D for <salud@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:54:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id mc6so6520230lab.0 for <salud@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:54:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=2hJfg5AnLNknGZcBxjldFV+6F5RoqYGPe8ujWgZjywc=; b=IvgopeQrOBrBkkkCOOswqanwlXz5rIJg6K7q2qpI9EyLYqFzT3f7db74lpp7VASgwi e3UcIcVJdqsKXsMfqamkU2yAiAtnrZ8zsaYQcvcnH68+A0FS74GSnUNu9oKG0IQntoA4 UUZKwFF088XfZ25Dyf2l3z+kxm6/fY4TruYCDv6rS262NYkb1b0JMZIGmp8UTHMhpjXC hPY2etAtjCA+7T4OPaoI7bjXtRm6UzYF6JHtWUDKEVb8mWuT85o88z4DmL3R9Fv8Jns4 mhECsiaeZ6N5+IPIiie67npw6XGUS7M734jb/2E4bRMg/29T8zOFjdfW2NpXa8cq0ahT vH+Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.225.161 with SMTP id rl1mr15561207lac.5.1390301672324; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:54:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.169.129 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:54:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D108F92@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C5EF0E7@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <201401072131.s07LVQZs2347719@shell01.TheWorld.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C5F00D5@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <201401162107.s0GL7AKI2944531@shell01.TheWorld.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1D108F92@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:54:32 +0100
Message-ID: <CACWXZj033ssRvpJPQ=V8LACYUW9SpySbf+Pi86XR6eu5YWmdcw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Laura Liess <laura.liess.dt@googlemail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113490fa4f43d604f078d53a
Cc: "salud@ietf.org" <salud@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [salud] Christer's review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-09
X-BeenThere: salud@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sip ALerting for User Devices working group discussion list <salud.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/>
List-Post: <mailto:salud@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud>, <mailto:salud-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:54:36 -0000

Christer, Dale,

IMO, the  draft updates the RFC 3261 because it allows the usage of the
Alert-Info header field in all provisional responses 1xx except the 100
response. This is described in the first two paragraphs of Section 1.2.
This paragraphs are OK in this section.
The third  paragraph is usefull (it explains what the draft does) but, as
Christer remarked,  it does not describe the update of the RFC3261 and so
it does not belong to this section.  I would move this paragraph at the end
of Section 1.1. What do you think?

Concerning the structure if the Section 1.2,   I will put the text from
section 1.2 into a new main Section 2 and structure it as Christer proposes
in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/salud/current/msg00454.html.
But  I think there are two places where we should update the 3261 text:
1) Section 20.4 as proposed by Christer and

2) Table 2: Summary of header fields, A--O on page 161, the " 180" in the
row

 Alert-Info             180     ar    -   -   -   o   -   -

   should be changed in "1xx (excepting 100)"

so we probably need two subsections "New text repalcing the text.........of
RFC 3261" .
Opinions?

Thank you
Laura



2014/1/20 Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>

> Hi,
>
> >> BTW, the following sentence is unclear to me:
> >>
> >>    "In practice, this specification extends Alert-Info in that it will
> >>    cause the use of a new class of URIs and the use of multiple URIs."
> >>
> >> What does it mean?
> >
> > The idea is that, while 3261 syntactically and semantically *allows*
> non-HTTP URIs in Alert-Info, nobody ever used non-HTTP URIs in Alert-Info,
> and nobody implemented an interpretation of those URIs.
> > Thus, even though we are not changing what is officially permitted,
> implementers will have to change their code because the new *practice* will
> be an extension of the old practice.  (And both the new practice and the
> old practice are a small subset of what is permitted by 3261.)
>
> Well, then you should use different wording. Because, the draft does not
> extend Alert-Info, it simply describes the usage of a new URN in the header
> field.
>
>
> >>>> Q9:
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>> Section 4 defines the ABNF for the URN, but [there] is no text on
> >>>> how to "map" it into the Alert-Info header field ABNF:
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, I assume that the URN is encoded using the opaque-part
> >>>> format of the absoluteURI, and that the scheme value is "urn". I
> >>>> think it would be good to indicate that.
> >>>
> >>> Actually, we're depending on the fact (unstated in RFC 3261) that
> >>> any "absolute" URI (per RFC 3986) is allowed as a header field value
> >>> in Alert-Info, and that the URNs we are defining conform to the
> >>> absolute URI syntax.  If the syntax for <absoluteURI> in RFC 3261
> >>> didn't allow all absolute URIs, we'd have to amend RFC 3261.
> >>
> >> There are two different "structures" for absolute URI, and the URNs
> >> only fit into the opaque-part structure.
> >>
> >> In addition, as the URI requires a scheme value, I think we should
> >> explicitly say what it is.
> >
> > I guess my point is that the 3261 ABNF already allows all alert URNs to
> appear in Alert-Info, and there is no need to specify exactly how alert
> URNs are compatible with the 3261 ABNF.  Anyone who cares exactly how this
> draft is directly compatible with the ABNF can see that by looking at the
> ABNF.
> >
> > Have there been other situations where this sort of syntax explication
> has been provided?
>
> I don't know - I am just commenting on how I think the draft could from my
> perspective be improved :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> salud mailing list
> salud@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/salud
>