Re: [sipcore] AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control-03

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 13 July 2010 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
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 372F73A67E5 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
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 JCXpgAnEwzlP for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB42F3A67D1 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.3.177] (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6DMMrR2093872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:22:53 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <A80667440D58A1469E651BA443BED3C1547F4EDE9D@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:22:52 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EBD2ADD1-2BAA-4E5A-BFD2-4775320F8465@nostrum.com>
References: <99619466-573D-4CEA-ACCD-3A3D262EB2B0@nostrum.com> <A80667440D58A1469E651BA443BED3C1547F4EDE9D@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
To: krisztian.kiss@nokia.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sipcore] AD review: draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control-03
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: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:22:46 -0000

A couple more observations inline (and I'm trimming away things I'm not replying to here):

On Jul 12, 2010, at 7:13 PM, krisztian.kiss@nokia.com wrote:

> Hi Robert,
> 
> I submitted the -04 version today addressing your comments: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sipcore-event-rate-control-04.txt 
> 
> Please find my answers in-line with [KK]:

<snip>

> 
> Is there text here that prevents a subscriber
> from generating Event headers in 200 OKs to NOTIFYs mid-subscription (when he
> didn't probe for support using the SUBSCRIBE?) How would they know the request
> got honored?  The possibility of running into implementations that break should
> be called out.  
> 
> [KK] I added text in -04 to address this: 
> Section 4.1: "If the Event header field of the SUBSCRIBE request did not include the "min-interval" parameter, the subscriber MUST NOT include an initial value of the "min-interval" Event header field parameter in a 200-class response to the NOTIFY request." 
> Section 4.2: "If the Event header field of the SUBSCRIBE request did not include the "min-interval" parameter, the notifier MUST ignore an initial value of the "min-interval" Event header field parameter in a 200-class response to the NOTIFY request, if present."
> ...and similar text covering max-interval and average-interval mechanisms.

These changes (and the associated changes in 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, and 6.2) are too granular and introduce the possibility of edge cases I don't think we should introduce.

It would be much simpler to say:
 
If the subscriber did not include at least one of the "min-interval, "max-interval", or "average-interval" header field parameters in the most recent SUBSCRIBE request in a given dialog, it MUST NOT include an Event header field with any of those parameters in a 200 OK to a NOTIFY in that dialog.

> 
> * Section 3.2 last paragraph: The sentence 'The "max-interval" parameter 
>      indicates ... complete state information' is difficult to parse. Could it
>      be simplified?

The new sentence you propose is even harder for me to read.

Here's some suggested text:

The "max-interval" parameter indicates to the notifier the maximum amount of time that should be allowed to elapse between NOTIFY requests containing complete state information.


RjS