Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02

Shida,
Do I understand you correct that you woulf like to mandate the uri format e.g. anonymus@anonymus,invalid? 
Why you would like it to be stronger than in RFC3323 mandated?

Best Regards

Roland

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Shida Schubert
Gesendet: Montag, 8. November 2010 07:50
An: Elwell, John
Cc: Barnes, Mary; sipcore@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02

Hi John;

 My comments inline.

On Nov 8, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Elwell, John wrote:

> Replying to both Shida and Mary: 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com] 
>> Sent: 08 November 2010 05:19
>> To: Shida Schubert
>> Cc: Elwell, John; Barnes, Mary; sipcore@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
>> 
>> A few additional comments inline below [MB].
>> 
>> Mary.
>> 
>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Shida Schubert 
>> <shida@ntt-at.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi John;
>>> 
>>>  My responses on some of the comments, I think
>>> Mary may be responding on the same issues but here are mine.
>>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 1. Section 7.3.1.
>>>> "If there is a Privacy header in the request with a priv-
>>>>   value of "header" or "history", then the initial hi-entry MUST be
>>>>   anonymized and the header removed when the request 
>> leaves a domain
>>>>   for which the SIP entity is responsible."
>>>> I think it should say "...and the Privacy header removed" 
>> - there is no point in removing the H-I header field if we 
>> have anonymized it.
>>> 
>>>  You are right. The intention was to say "remove the 
>> priv-value and remove the privacy
>>> header itself if there are no other priv-value left (id may 
>> exists which needs
>>> to remain in the request until it reaches the egress point)".
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2. What is meant by anonymizing a hi-entry (in this 
>> paragraph and elsewhere)? Is it only the hi-targeted-to-uri 
>> that needs to be anonymized, or also its parameters? The 
>> examples in annex B show just the URI anonymized and with the 
>> value anonymous@anonymous.invalid. Is this how it MUST be done?
>> 
>> [MB] It is only the hi-targeted-to-uri that needs to be anonymized -
>> it is a MUST. The other parameters MUST not be changed. [/MB]
> [JRE] You didn't express any opinion whether we should mandate the way in which hi-targeted-uri is to be anonymized.

 To avoid redundant anonymization in case there are numerous 
proxy acting as a privacy services, it would be good to mandate 
how hi-targeted-uri is anonymized, so I am happy to say MUST 
here. 

> 
> <snip/>
> 
>>>> 8. "MUST be calculated by incrementing the last/lowest digit
>>>>       at the current level"
>>>> and
>>>> "That is, the lowest/last digit of the index MUST be
>>>>       incremented "
>>>> What if an index is a double-digit integer?
>>> 
>>>  How about we remove the "lowest/last" and simply
>>> say incrementing the digit at the current level by 1 or
>>> something like that.
> [JRE] Why can't we specify the field as an integer, and then we can say we increment the integer?

 Sounds good to me. 

> 
>>>> 9. Section 8:
>>>> "an
>>>>   application might need to provide special handling in some cases
>>>>   where there are gaps."
>>>> Should there be a note discussing the fact that some gaps 
>> are not detectable, e.g., if I receive 1, 1.1 and 1.1.1, I 
>> cannot detect if 1.2 or 1.1.2, say, is missing.
>>> 
>>>  This would happen, say for example if request was
>>> parallel forked, each branch would have the hi-entry
>>> that only the forked request traversed but missing
>>> the information of the other forks. I don't know if I would
>>> consider what you describe as a gap. You may be
>>> missing the other branches but you should be able to
>>> identify the gap in index for the branch that request
>>> traversed. (You may be missing the actual hop in the
>>> logical tree of History-Info that does not support
>>> 4244/4244bis but as they won't add the hi-entry
>>> there won't be a gap in index itself).
> [JRE] Yes, I understand that, and that is why I just asked the question - I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this is good enough or not.

 I think we can definitely add a text saying the hi-entries 
an entity receives may not represent the whole picture 
of where request was sent (other branches etc.). 

 Regards
  Shida

> 
> <snip/>
> 
> John

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
sipcore@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore