[sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows-05

Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com> Wed, 17 November 2010 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <gonzalo.camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCEE3A691F for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:02:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m5qPw4BgCBP1 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BF4B3A6904 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:02:02 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7cabae000005002-96-4ce3ee980a03
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D9.C7.20482.89EE3EC4; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:02:48 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ( by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:02:48 +0100
Message-ID: <4CE3EE96.7080902@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:02:46 +0200
From: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows-05
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:02:04 -0000


a few days ago, I received a publication request for the following draft:


Please, find below a few minor comments on the draft.



References use the following convention (RFC 5246 [12]). The current
recommendation is to use [RFC5246] instead. Something like this should
work in xml2rfc:

  <?rfc symrefs="yes"?>

Once you are at it, you may want to also add the following:

  <?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
  <?rfc subcompact="no" ?>

Add a reference for ASN.1 and X.509

Expand acronyms on their first use (e.g., UA and EKU).

Page 28. The word "Section" needs to be capitalized when referring to
particular sections (e.g., Section 6 of RFC 5280).

Page 28. Some paragraphs contain pointers to the relevant normative
behavior as defined in other RFCs. However, some paragraphs do not
have those pointers. For example:

  Some SIP clients incorrectly only do SSLv3 and do not support TLS.

  Many SIP clients were found to accept expired certificates with no
  warning or error.

In the next paragraph, add a reference to Section 3.2 of RFC 5621:

   Some implementations used binary MIME encodings while others used
   base64.  It is advisable that implementations send only binary and
   are prepared to receive either.