RE: [Sip] WGLC for auth-id body

["Peterson, Jon" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for these comments. A few notes below.

Jon Peterson
NeuStar, Inc.

[snip]
> I've reviewed this document (with revision of referredby
> particularly in mind) and have the following minor comments:
> 
> - It would help section 4 to more explicitly note that it
>   is discussing using AIBs to do something beyond(besides?)
>   providing integrity protection/authentication for the 
>   request it appears in.  It would also help to capture that
>   the presence of these other things don't preclude the section
>   2 use of an AIB. Perhaps this text at end of the first paragraph
>   of section 4:
> 
>      Such information might be carried in one or more supplemental
>      AIBs. The presence of these supplemental AIBs does not preclude
>      the use of AIB as specified in this document to protect the
>      message in which they appear.
> 

Yes, I do think it is important to capture the idea that there may be
multiple AIBs in a SIP message that identify different parties. The text
given above looks good to me.

> - Instead of a special case of INVITE (see the heading of section 4), I
>   think this simply a different use of an AIB. This document constrains
>   the use of AIBs for providing integrity protection of messages and
>   authenticating their sender regardless of method type. Section 4 is
>   trying to note that other AIBs might appear that do something 
>   different. Perhaps this section could be titled "Potential additional
>   uses of AIBs"?
> 

Well, although REFER-instigated INVITEs might not be a special case as such,
most would probably say that 3PCC is a special case. But still, we need a
section title that accommodates both, so I think that's fair; a better title
for this section is probably in order. I think we need something with the
sense "Use of AIBs to express the identity of someone other than the sender
of the INVITE". I'll try to figure out a way to compress that to
header-size.

> - Section 10 (Security Considerations): The first sentence needs to
>   be scoped to the section 2 use of AIBs, not all uses of AIBs with
>   message/sipfrag in them.
> 

Okay, fine.

> - Spelling Nits:
>    * Second sentence, last paragraph Page 4: 
>        s/SHOULD be added it to/SHOULD be added to/
>    * Second sentence, last paragraph, section 4, Page 6:
>        s/harder to correlated an AIB/harder to correlate an AIB/
> 

Thanks, I'll take care of all of those.

> Other than that, I believe this document is ready to go.
> 
> RjS
> 
> On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 19:39, Rohan Mahy wrote:
> > Hello Everyone,
> > 
> > I would like to begin Working Group Last Call on
> > 
> > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-authid-body-01.txt
> > 
> > WGLC will end on Friday, June 13, 2003.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > -rohan
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> > Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
> > Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip
> 
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip