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

Brian Hibbard <brian@estacado.net> Thu, 18 November 2010 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@estacado.net>
X-Original-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB203A688B for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:47:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8tcKIu6Qg69S for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from estacado.net (estacado-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:266::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9E328C0CF for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 08:46:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.105] (cpe-76-182-241-151.tx.res.rr.com [76.182.241.151]) (authenticated bits=0) by estacado.net (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id oAIGlcYA005348 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:47:43 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from brian@estacado.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
From: Brian Hibbard <brian@estacado.net>
In-Reply-To: <4CE3EE96.7080902@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:47:38 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7F5FDAA-9B06-4F51-A9EA-D2466C943AED@estacado.net>
References: <4CE3EE96.7080902@ericsson.com>
To: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>, SIPCORE Chairs <sipcore-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:47:01 -0000

Gonzalo,


Thank you for your review.  I made these revisions to the newly submitted version draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows-06 to address the points you made:

References are now generated with symrefs="yes", sortrefs="yes", subcompact="no". 

References to ASN.1 (ITU X.683) and ITU X.509 are added.

Acronyms expanded on first use:  EKU, UA, and CPIM.

"Section" was capitalized in each case when used in a reference.

A pointer to Section 26.2.1 of RFC 3261 was added for text on page 28, "Some SIP clients incorrectly only do SSLv3 and do not support TLS."  

A pointer to Section 4.1.2.5 of RFC 5280 was added for text on page 28, "Many SIP clients were found to accept expired certificates with no warning or error."

Reference to Section 3.2 of RFC 5621 for text on page 28, "Some implementations used binary encodings…"

Thanks,
Brian

On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> a few days ago, I received a publication request for the following draft:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows-05.txt
> 
> Please, find below a few minor comments on the draft.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore