[Sip] More general question on S-S-L mode in RPH

Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com> Wed, 10 November 2004 15:59 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA23744 for <sip-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:59:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRutL-0005lC-M1 for sip-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 11:00:15 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRueI-0007Ba-Tq; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:44:42 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CRuar-0006bs-J7; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:41:09 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA21525; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:41:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from amer-mta01.csc.com ([20.137.2.247]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CRubo-0005H7-Pd; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:42:10 -0500
Received: from csc.com (va-fch34.csc.com [20.6.39.227]) by amer-mta01.csc.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id iAAFf0qb017186; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:41:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [Sip] More general question on S-S-L mode in RPH
To: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.11 July 24, 2002
Message-ID: <OFCB81A03E.F350F976-ON85256F48.0051BA4B-85256F48.00563300@csc.com>
From: Janet P Gunn <jgunn6@csc.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 10:39:28 -0500
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on VA-FCH34/SRV/CSC(Release 6.0.3|September 26, 2003) at 11/10/2004 10:41:50 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745
Cc: Richard F Kaczmarek <rkaczmarek@csc.com>, Darren E Pado <dpado@csc.com>, Saud Negash <snegash@csc.com>, sip@ietf.org, sip-bounces@ietf.org, nyquetek@msn.com, Dennis Q Berg <dberg3@csc.com>
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.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: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1

What do the S-S-L modes apply to?

In this case, I am just looking just at the dimension of which messages are
accepted, and which are rejected- ignoring the other features which have
been associated with the mode.

4.3.2 says that "mode" is a characteristic of the SIP element:

"When handling requests with unknown namespaces or priority values,
   elements can operate in one of three modes, "strict", "semi-strict"
   and "loose"."

This makes some sense to me (comments below).

There are other places that imply that the mode is a characteristic of the
domain.  4.3.3 says:

"Strict Mode is for administrative domains (or realms) that ..."

But table 1 in section 7 says:

"                                            New   New Error
Namespace  Levels   Mode    Operation   Rej. code  code    Reference
---------  ------   ----    ---------   ---------  ----    ---------
   dsn       5     strict   preemption      no      417    [This RFC]

   drsn      6     strict   preemption      no      417    [This RFC]

   q735      5     strict   preemption      no      417    [This RFC]

   ets       5  semi-strict preferential    no      417    [This RFC]

   wps       5  semi-strict preferential    no      417    [This RFC]

                   Table 1. Namespace Parameters"

Which makes "mode" a characteristic of the namespace.

This makes less sense to me.  If any of these namespaces appear in an RPH
in a SIP message which is being processed by a SIP element operating in
loose mode, they will NOT get the strict or semi-strict behavior specified
in Table 1.

It seems to me that the mode is/should be a function of the (SIP element,
namespace) pair.

For instance a SIP element could be "strict" for namespace A and
"semi-strict" for namespace B.

So a message with just A would succeed
A message with just B would be rejected
A message with A and B would succeed
A message with just C would  be rejected
A message with A and C would be rejected

Or the SIP element could be "strict" for namespace A, and "loose" for
everything else.

So a message with just A would succeed
A message with just B would be rejected
A message with A and B would succeed
A message with just C would  be rejected
A message with A and C would be succeed.

I don't think you could combine "semi-strict" and "loose" in the same SIP
element.

Am I missing something?

Janet




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a PRIVATE message. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete without copying and kindly advise us by e-mail of the mistake in
delivery. NOTE: Regardless of content, this e-mail shall not operate to
bind CSC to any order or other contract unless pursuant to explicit written
agreement or government initiative expressly permitting the use of e-mail
for such purpose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




_______________________________________________
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