[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
- [Sip] More general question on S-S-L mode in RPH Janet P Gunn
- Re: [Sip] More general question on S-S-L mode in … James M. Polk
- Re: [Sip] More general question on S-S-L mode in … Mpierce1