Re: [sipcore] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme-12: (with COMMENT)

[Rifaat Shekh-Yusef <[e-mail]>]

Done.

On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 9:13 AM Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote:
>
> Hi Alexey,
>
> I am fine with Paul's suggestion.
> Are you ok with "32*LHEX"?
>
> Yes!
>
> Thank you,
> Alexey
>
>
> Regards,
>  Rfaat
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 7:22 AM Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Rifaat,
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Rifaat Shekh-Yusef wrote:
>
> Thanks Alexey!
>
> I am fine with the first two comments, and will fix these in the coming
> version of the document.
>
> I am not sure I follow the 3rd one. Why do you see the need for a minimum
> number of hex digits?
>
> You do say that the number of hex digits match the hash lenght, so it is
> probably Ok. However empty value is never valid (and I am worried it might
> hit some boundary condition bug in implementations), so prohibiting it in
> ABNF would be the best.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
>
>
> Regards,
>  Rifaat
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 1:16 PM Alexey Melnikov via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme-12: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-digest-scheme/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I am agreeing with Alissa's DISCUSS.
>
> Also, I have a few comments of my own:
>
> 1) Last para of Section 2.1:
>
> 2.1.  Hash Algorithms
>
>    A UAS prioritizes which algorithm to use based on the ordering of the
>    challenge header fields in the response it is preparing.
>
> This looks either wrong or confusing to me. I think you are just saying
> here
> that the order is decided by the server at this point.
>
>    That
>    process is specified in section 2.3 and parallels the process used in
>    HTTP specified by [RFC7616].
>
> So based on the above, my suggested replacement for both sentences:
>
>    A UAS prioritizes which algorithm to use based on its policy,
>    which is specified in section 2.3 and parallels the process used in
>    HTTP specified by [RFC7616].
>
> 2) Last para of Section 2.4:
>
>    If the UAC cannot respond to any of the challenges in the response,
>    then it SHOULD abandon attempts to send the request unless a local
>    policy dictates otherwise.
>
> Is trying other non Digest algorithms covered by "SHOULD abandon"?
> If yes, maybe you should make this clearer.
>
>    For example, if the UAC does not have
>    credentials or has stale credentials for any of the realms, the UAC
>    will abandon the request.
>
> 3) In Section 2.7:
>
>       request-digest = LDQUOT *LHEX RDQUOT
>
> This now allows empty value. I suggest you specify a minimum number of hex
> digits allowed in the ABNF. Or at least change "*LHEX" to "2*LHEX".
>
>
>
>
>