Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many open questions
Byron Campen <bcampen@estacado.net> Thu, 28 May 2009 15:47 UTC
Return-Path: <bcampen@estacado.net>
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CF3528C23C for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2009 08:47:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YnnvwBW3lQWK for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 May 2009 08:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3192B3A67F4 for <sip@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 May 2009 08:47:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dn3-233.estacado.net (dn3-233.estacado.net [172.16.3.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n4SFmiWo050620 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 28 May 2009 10:48:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from bcampen@estacado.net)
Message-Id: <CF5A086E-7E91-4E14-808E-FC197DBDE17E@estacado.net>
From: Byron Campen <bcampen@estacado.net>
To: Anders Lindgren C <anders.c.lindgren@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <6D34F0B7D5BCB246A42380744457CA3605B837D6@esealmw107.eemea.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-12--1069448263"; micalg="sha1"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 10:48:37 -0500
References: <656509D0-269E-48C4-BA76-0195E1A31B3C@softarmor.com> <47F8D2FD-9081-4E9C-96B5-8400FD822477@estacado.net> <6D34F0B7D5BCB246A42380744457CA3605B837D6@esealmw107.eemea.ericsson.se>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: sip@ietf.org, Robert Sparks <rjs@nostrum.com>, Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many open questions
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:47:19 -0000
stuff inline > Hi Byron > Some comments inline > Best Regards > Anders Lindgren > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sip-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sip-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Byron Campen >> Sent: den 27 maj 2009 17:44 >> To: jari.urpalainen@nokia.com; Dean Willis >> Cc: sip@ietf.org List; Robert Sparks >> Subject: Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many >> open questions >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 7:35 PM, Dean Willis wrote: >>> >>> >>> 3) SUBSCRIBE bodies >>> >>> Section 4.4 currently says; >>> >>> The SUBSCRIBE request MAY contain an Accept header field. If no >>> such >>> header field is present, it has a default value of "application/ >>> xcap-diff+xml". If the header field is present, it MUST include >>> "application/xcap-diff+xml", and MAY include any other types. >>> >>> This doesn't sound right to me. >>> >> >> Yeah, this is what 3265 makes us do (define a default >> Accept header field value for the event package). >> >> Also, it looks like we lost a right-angle-bracket on >> the <element> open tag in the xcap-diff document in section 5. >> >> Lastly, I have been meaning to ask; in what cases (if >> any) would sending a SUBSCRIBE 404 be appropriate in this >> event package? Do we establish a subscription even if every >> uri in the SUBSCRIBE body refers to an AUID we don't support? > > A Subscriber can find out which AUID the XCAP Server support by > retrieving the "xcap-cap" document document as defined in RFC4825 > section 12 prior to the subscription in case an implemtation needs to > know this. > Oh yeah, absolutely. I am coming at this from the server's perspective though; why should I be forced to maintain a subscription to stuff that I don't even support, and never will support for the lifetime of the subscription? I guess what I am arguing is that this may be a good thing to leave up to policy. >> What about uris that are formatted in an unsupported way (for >> example, using "users/bob" when what the server really needs >> is "users/sip:bob@foo"), or that use a document name that >> doesn't exist in the AUID being used (say, "rls- >> services.xml" instead of "index" or "index.xml")? How about >> uris that are outright malformed; it seems that our best >> choice is a SUBSCRIBE 400, but what if only one of the uris >> in the SUBSCRIBE body is in such a state? > > It is very difficult for an XCAP server to know that a valid document > selector will be in the future. It shall be possible to monitor when a > document is created and how will the Notifier know what in the future > will be a valid Document selector? When I was talking about malformed URIs, I was mainly thinking about malformed XPATH, which will remain malformed. But, if a document selector is malformed now, and the server does not expose configuration that will make it well-formed in the lifetime of the subscription (across a recompile/upgrade/reboot/etc), would it then make sense to reject as a matter of local policy? In principle the implementor will know what can be reconfigured to work on-the-fly, and what can't (whether this is true in practice, who knows, but I think that's safely in the realm of "implementor's problem"). I agree that _requiring_ servers to reject when they don't _currently_ understand a doc-selector or a collection selector is a bad idea (which is the point you're trying to make here, I think). They should be _allowed_ to do so when it makes sense for the particular implementation, however. > >> Could we use <xcap-error> documents in some way (provided the > subscriber >> supports this format) to help indicate what went wrong in these >> cases? > > If it exist a need to provide this detailed information I do not think > the <xcap-error> is a suitable choice as this document is handling > errors related to the XML body in an XCAP PUT and not errors related > to > the Document selector. > Yeah, you're right (I was erroneously remembering that you could use <xcap-error> in some cases for GETs). Best regards, Byron Campen
- [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many open… Dean Willis
- Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many … Jari Urpalainen
- Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many … Byron Campen
- Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many … Jari Urpalainen
- Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many … Anders Lindgren C
- Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many … Byron Campen
- Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many … Robert Sparks
- Re: [Sip] Draft ietf-sip-xcapevent revised, many … Jari Urpalainen