Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01
Aki Niemi <aki.niemi@nokia.com> Mon, 25 February 2008 22:31 UTC
Return-Path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CC628CF97; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:31:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.681
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.681 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 Tn-0ukD5Kwk4; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:31:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99B728C5F6; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:59:34 -0800 (PST)
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 3C07928C5B6 for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:59:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 xF9hLj3bLbzv for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:59:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-mx03.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7F1E28C75B for <sip@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh107.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.143]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id m1PLrLRx032391; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:53:22 +0200
Received: from esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.34]) by esebh107.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:53:14 +0200
Received: from mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.143.96]) by esebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:53:14 +0200
Received: from [10.162.253.189] (essapo-nirac253189.europe.nokia.com [10.162.253.189]) by mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id m1PLrCVS018062; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:53:12 +0200
From: Aki Niemi <aki.niemi@nokia.com>
To: "ext worley@dworley.hsd1.ma.comcast.net" <worley@dworley.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <200709181506.l8IF6Bmp007748@dragon.ariadne.com>
References: <5D1A7985295922448D5550C94DE2918001636AF1@DEEXC1U01.de.lucent.com> <200709181506.l8IF6Bmp007748@dragon.ariadne.com>
Organization: Nokia Devices R&D
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:53:12 +0200
Message-Id: <1203976392.6192.88.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Feb 2008 21:53:14.0417 (UTC) FILETIME=[D250E210:01C877F8]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
On ti, 2007-09-18 at 11:06 -0400, ext worley@dworley.hsd1.ma.comcast.net wrote: > I have one technical issue (which is probably insoluble and can only > be documented) and a number of nits. > > * Section 4 specifies that a resource is identified by one or more > URIs. It seems to be implicit that one URI always identifies the same > resource. Without that, it would be difficult to use ETags > effectively, since ETags are only unique for a single resource. Yes. > In the general case, the mapping from URIs to resources involves the > full complexity of SIP routing. This means that without additional > information, the subscriber does not know that request-URI that it > uses always maps into the same resource URI, and so has no absolute > guarantee that the space of ETags it is working with does not change > over time. The subscriber really need not know. It is the notifier's responsibility to keep the entity-tags unique across all of the insanely difficult SIP routing that it may deploy in front of it. > One assumes that all SUBSCRIBEs within a subscription are routed to > the same destination URI because the refresh SUBSCRIBEs are sent using > the route-set and contact. But a "resumed" subscription does not have > this protection. Correct. > It is not clear that there is any solution to these problems, and we > may only be able to document that the subscriber is responsible for > assuring that successive subscription requests are delivered to the > same resource. This isn't the subscriber's problem. Moreover, I really doubt that it is even feasible to build a system where a new subscription sent to the same AoR will randomly reach a different notifier instance that is in no way synchronized (as in state, entity-tag values, etc) with the other instances. > * Section 3 contains the line: > > notification, and attaches includes it in a SIP-ETag header field of > > The words "attaches includes" seem to be incorrect. Perhaps only > "includes" was intended? Fixed in -02. > * In section 3, it is emphasized that ETags are only unique "for a > resource and event package". Checking RFC 3265, "event-package" > explicitly excludes any parameters attached to the event package name > in the "Event" header. Section 4 defines the entity to include the Event header field, which includes all of the parameters. > * Section 3 and other sections contain examples of SUBSCRIBE requests > which receive a 202 response. It may be worth mentioning that 200 > responses are also possible (if the notifier can determine without > delay that the request is authorized). Fixed in -02. It now says 202 (or 200). > * Section 5.2 contains the statement: > > Unlike the condition introduced for the SIP PUBLISH [1] method, these > conditions do not apply to the SUBSCRIBE request itself, but to the > resulting NOTIFY request. > > This is not strictly true, as success of the Suppress-Notify-If-Match > condition causes the SUBSCRIBE to receive a 204 response. Yes it is. A PUBLISH request will succeed (with a 2xx) or fail (412) based on the condition; whereas a SUBSCRIBE will always succeed (with a 2xx) regardless of whether the "suppress" condition is true or not. This is because the condition only affects the NOTIFYs that follow. > * Section 5.3 states: > > When a subscriber receives a NOTIFY request that contains a SIP-ETag > header field, it MUST store the entity-tag. > > This seems to be an awkward description. The subscriber only needs to > store the entity-tag if it wishes to avail itself of the subnot-etags > mechanism later. I think it would be clearer to say something like: > > In order for a subscriber to use this mechanism, when it receives a > NOTIFY request that contains a SIP-ETag header field, it must store > the entity-tag for later use. Fixed in -02. > * Section 5.7 shows a subscription being terminated: > > Subscriber Notifier > ---------- -------- > > (1) SUBSCRIBE --------> > Suppress-Notify-If-Match: ega23 > Expires: 0 > > But it seems to me that most subscribers will only terminate a > subscription when they are no longer interested in the state of the > resource, and so it would be more straightforward to use "*" to ensure > that they do not receive a NOTIFY that they are not interested in: > > (1) SUBSCRIBE --------> > Suppress-Notify-If-Match: * > Expires: 0 Yes, this is also an option. > * In sections 7.2 and 7.3, "it's" is used where "its" should be used. > (That is one of the irregularities of English -- "it's" is reserved as > the contraction of "it is".) > > This header field is allowed to appear in any request, but [its] > behavior is only defined for the SUBSCRIBE request. Fixed in -02. Thanks for the review! Cheers, Aki > Dale _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
- [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- [Sip] Outbound-10 comments Jerry Yin
- RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments peter_blatherwick
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments sergiole
- RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Brian Rosen
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments Rohan Mahy
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments Rohan Mahy
- Re: [Sip] Outbound-10 comments peter_blatherwick
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Aki Niemi
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Aki Niemi
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dean Willis
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Aki Niemi
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Aki Niemi
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dean Willis
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley
- Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-subnot-etags-01 Dale.Worley