Re: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme comments

Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com> Sat, 25 May 2019 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24ADF1200FC for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 11:00:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id atYJkcDPaO0d for <sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 May 2019 11:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x12b.google.com (mail-it1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1E26120026 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 May 2019 11:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id m3so20948729itl.1 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 May 2019 11:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UQeSXbjisRSASln3JcGKiHaiLwM5O0xwKEIDTp5nhcA=; b=C33STrm7gmNgEFqVXKEZ6xsNuTTwEaCC9nWkr+TlSFgj+5gHsUp0xSfDIi0kjIjMkN 8gVKKNw8R19MyTy5DRujZtd0HylrKeUmxPUmn8kAP7oh5mmDdliUTyDowVPOkWopg5Ge BVCdeG3VmeQ24qNRA5C1X12g6lrfCeNVdFqadkO5YLW5Pz4VdFkmGHnPFdxoGYMYcSoh N6CVEou4FbZ09cV1NgYhYg2irigz+5nIJrmkWOF0V/FAkMDrwaDlQp3/rLS2RTnKBGAQ ksh8Oc14zYAU/C6u+nSTQW8SfoJeAAMQ9bYaMTTW46AYXiVhI1iU+KyMDP+BJyyL7DBQ xp4A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UQeSXbjisRSASln3JcGKiHaiLwM5O0xwKEIDTp5nhcA=; b=FsXmYe1Iua4uGdOepRpwKSATERYX6ypsiAltok7txndz/Dy0rROwt/3VH2mqwrUlFC ZWKhKwOvwH/RXAdRwMa/eCmgb4sEktgT9MjCiQyaZH5zeip0xvLV7DKpK3bzap+O/HCk ux+N14vL8jIP1stnokfQ0SPct2qM7WfEs5KnPVqjBHEeBDL0YFlczbDLow2tHAW5Jj7q j1NjMuMbtZXzd/OdtsymHCQdhRWfOHIXBEcrXo87qjj4QWBQMLVT5Lv+3g6VYB0kmfRN VsWWeR8KVK2OTJjIAyydkwVidGpA02J6tOZ5KQIvjcGKUluTwhXAlbl8ZClj/4ZuYOqU 7Qlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+W9RWE8BIIoOzkd+zoKhLfP5clxB1+/TL17uDfFIMIHMJ/Jja b8DvILvOjsHtt+WFeyWj5Dc6Y8C7lcetAFWzE5o=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyUaBLosmqF2BFBGh5RiEkWWbbO4IAo7aDhW4AM4hGCCD34SkY5hNzUr8gNWrvDuXnEEk76lE6fS//djJF4IQM=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:660c:: with SMTP id k12mr6378337jac.25.1558807212073; Sat, 25 May 2019 11:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DE595AFF-5DEA-4A32-8527-10B841D6C7C1@edvina.net> <CAGL6epLMHoneH6PNgeF5TgJhveh-xWeZSW6XQDBB2Gf5mS9eRQ@mail.gmail.com> <C1431DCD-C4DD-4BFA-9C5D-E4DFE7B0F2DA@edvina.net> <B4A08741-A092-480C-AE12-2DD25D7835D0@ericsson.com> <CAGL6epJTv+Dytk_VHNi4Sk0mimVj=cMqWR4u9uSg1q+RcUQJ_Q@mail.gmail.com> <98D9E38D-4EA3-4F55-B37D-5334FA42F362@ericsson.com> <CAGL6epL7y0jiOqBdt3UOkx31ueQofh-W8vPwjvOUZhHZsaDq3A@mail.gmail.com> <2BD32E4F-AA3F-4C61-BE9F-037353FA4083@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <2BD32E4F-AA3F-4C61-BE9F-037353FA4083@ericsson.com>
From: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <rifaat.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 14:00:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGL6ep+F4Wj6uQMyLttvRaTDmROg=J8__6nwkeCNHgJTR1db_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>, SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000262a350589ba16d7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/7l31X9gvJ-sKxkP7m5WF1CU2DEU>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme comments
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/sipcore/>
List-Post: <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2019 18:00:15 -0000

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 12:31 PM Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> ...
>
> >>>>> Section 2.4:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "When the UAC receives a response with multiple header fields with
> the
> >>>>>   same realm it SHOULD use the topmost header field that it supports,
> >>>>>   unless a local policy dictates otherwise.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why a SHOULD? I would prefer a MUST.
> >>>>
> >>>> I can do that, but the last part of this paragraph states that local
> policy can override this recommendations anyway.
> >>>> So, does it make any difference?
> >>>> Should we allow that? Why would local policy enforce a downgrade?
> >>>>
> >>>>> “When the UAC receives a 401 response with multiple WWW-Authenticate
> >>>>>   header fields with different realms it SHOULD retry and include an
> >>>>>   Authorization header field containing credentials that match the
> >>>>>   topmost header field of any one of the realms.”
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you are disallowing multiple Authorization headers for the same
> realm,
> >>>>> but with different algorithms I think this should be clearly
> written. In my
> >>>>> view, that would be a good thing.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is allowed.
> >>>
> >>> RFC 3261 does not say anything about using the topmost header, does it?
> >>>
> >>> I was referring to this document.
> >>
> >> So, the should-use-topmost is something new, defined in this document?
> >
> > Yes, as per RFC7616.
>
> Perhaps then say "As defined in RFC7617,...."
>
> And, perhaps mention it in section 2, where the changes are listed.
>

The normative text for SIP is specified in this document, so I do not see
the need to add such a sentence.


> Also, as the remote peer may not have implemented the draft, I think it
> would be good to point out that one must not assume that the peer will use
> the topmost header, even if it supports the algorithm in the topmost header.
>
>
Ok. I will add a sentence to section 2.3.

Regards,
 Rifaat





> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>