Re: [Sip] Followup on WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-e2m-sec-01.txt

A remark on consistency across drafts: Both 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-location-conveyance-02.txt 
and http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-e2m-sec-01.txt are 
using content-id to refer to a body contained in the same request. However, 
their ABNF is very different:

Proxy-Required-Body   = "Proxy-Required-Body" HCOLON required-proxy
                           SEMI target-body
   required-proxy        = host
   target-body           = cid-param *(COMMA cid-param)
   cid-param             = "cid" EQUAL content-id
   content-id            = LDQUOT dot-atom "@" (dot-atom / host) RDQUOT
   dot-atom              = atom *( "." atom )
   atom                  = 1*( alphanum / "-" / "!" / "%" / "*" /
                           "_" / "+" / "'" / "`" / "~"   )versus

Location           =  "Location" HCOLON Location-value *(COMMA
                         Location-value)
   location-value     =  (addr-spec / option-tag / token)
   addr-spec          =  cid-url / absoluteURI
   option-tag         =  string
   token              =  token / quoted-string
   cid-url            =  "cid" ":" content-id /
   absoluteURI        =  SIP or SIPS-URI
   content-id         =  url-addr-spec
   url-addr-spec      =  addr-spec ; URL encoding of RFC 822 addr-spec(I 
sent a private comment to the authors proposing to change the latter into 
Location           =  "Location" HCOLON ( status-token / (locationURI 
*(COMMA locationURI)))status-token       =  "Unknown" / tokenlocationURI 
=  SIP-URI / SIPS-URI / absoluteURI / cidURIcidURI             =  "cid:" 
content-idcontent-id         =  addr-spec ; URL encoding of RFC3261 
addr-spec)In any case, these things look very similar - should we agree on a 
common syntax at least for the content-id part?

Regards,

Jeroen

> On 3/9/06 1:32 PM, "Dean Willis" <dean.willis@softarmor.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just so you folks don't think they're nothing to keep you busy over
>>> the holidays, I'd like to start working group last call of the End
>>> to Middle draft:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-e2m-sec-01.txt
>>>
>>> I'd also like to request additional-cross area review from the
>>> Security area on this document.
>>>
>>> Given the cross-area review, I'd like to conclude the WGLC by
>>> January 20, 2006.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Okay, kids. I haven't seen a single response to this WGLC, and Kumiko
>> tells me she hasn't either. This means one of several things:
>>
>> 1) You ate so much over the holidays that you forgot all about it.
>>
>> 2) The draft is perfect and ready to send to the IETF.
>>
>> 3) We just haven't thought about it enough to have an opinion.
>>
>> 4) We're waiting on the security review before we form our own
>> opinion because security is complicated and scary and the
>> practitioners have interesting hair.
>>
>> 5) You replied, but a GRUU ate your email.
>>
>> So which is it?
>>
>> --
>
> Uh, for me 1,3, and 4.
>
> Perhaps at this meeting we could ask for a group of people to provide
> careful review.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www1.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 mailing list  https://www1.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