Re: [salud] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12 and also Area Director's review

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Wed, 14 May 2014 19:05 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@ariadne.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 BD16A1A0352 for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 12:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=unavailable
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 rP2tJQgL3PYF for <salud@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 12:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B041A032F for <salud@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2014 12:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71]) by qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1rYx1o0031YDfWL5Fv5kZg; Wed, 14 May 2014 19:05:44 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([24.34.72.61]) by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1v5k1o00F1KKtkw3gv5kGW; Wed, 14 May 2014 19:05:44 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s4EJ5hED021002; Wed, 14 May 2014 15:05:43 -0400
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s4EJ5hSs021001; Wed, 14 May 2014 15:05:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 15:05:43 -0400
Message-Id: <201405141905.s4EJ5hSs021001@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
Sender: worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley)
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
In-reply-to: <59C714FF-841A-410F-834B-70A3890C4628@isode.com> (alexey.melnikov@isode.com)
References: <535E50C1.2060100@isode.com> <201405061853.s46Ire8K007213@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B1965E3@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <201405071555.s47Ft9em010517@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <59C714FF-841A-410F-834B-70A3890C4628@isode.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1400094344; bh=J7fhkn9bCPAe78Yzrew31LlvsXEa+NuzFZ+H7uhTkBs=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject; b=GIxCgMlMviclBP1wNVvSwk2D62EdKdHKiCK9pfnCHyr5eFUlmhxc8wrCgdM/Npt1d i7CE3j3pEs6NofNTISfL3WmuXRa1pMuAZfz2D30XVxyVMrbjDc4+gdHTDW6On8ImDG 9Lzi98Q0aLx48nFelPKtzcejXbnkaUk9F0+vumUWQBW3imgHEYLXCenPIuFRN/l/DW zHPL7d4xbcm2XJhYpqouZdmZsOG0Vica0FfEoWz1IbMcA6MwOHfYlTL4Kkks+iFk1v fFzewu7M0nAW88lvhF1AElq4y1X6ZjBH2gDDGHRb4RGNsQ7atCDCu9ZSE1yiS2J58D 7laviHmKBBlXA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/salud/UpDKg-fff3yv9GTfFvZ26SkE-78
Cc: draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, salud@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [salud] Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-salud-alert-info-urns-12 and also Area Director's review
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: Wed, 14 May 2014 19:05:54 -0000

> From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>

> > It's a tricky matter.  What we really want is MUST, that this is a
> > constraint on the UA, particularly that it must be prepared to cope
> > with any sequence of syntactically-correct URIs, and it must do
> > something that is reasonable in the eyes of the user.  The problem is
> > that this criterion isn't testable in any absolute way, despite the
> > fact that there are a large number of actions that "everybody" would
> > agree are violations.
> 
> If you can show some examples (and add them to the text), that would
> be valuable.

The authors are currently discussing rewriting this paragraph (per a
suggestion by Ben Campbell) in order to make it clear what is meant by
"reasonable".  In practice, it seems that the UA must ignore any URIs
that it cannot understand (e.g., unkown schemes) or cannot act on
(e.g., HTTP URIs to non-local destinations), and construct an alert
based on the URIs that it understands and can act on (which of course
would be a default alert if there were no actionable URIs).

> At first I thought this sentence sounded like "you MUST NOT crash",
> which I thought was obvious and not worth stating. But it looks like
> you have something else in mind?

"must not crash" is important.  So is "must produce *some* alert".
The general idea is "Degraded performance is OK; failure to perfrom is
not OK."

Dale