Re: [sipcore] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08: (with COMMENT)

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Thu, 20 June 2019 02:54 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.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 60221120134; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 cdYYa68vsGuO; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from biz221.inmotionhosting.com (biz221.inmotionhosting.com [198.46.93.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33342120072; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [68.100.196.217] (port=51403 helo=[192.168.10.23]) by biz221.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1hdnDI-0062LX-R5; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 19:54:17 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <156035921069.14103.10047256808594559317.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 22:54:11 -0400
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected@ietf.org, Jean Mahoney <mahoney@nostrum.com>, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DD2B5805-BE8C-4489-A632-F6C971889D54@standardstrack.com>
References: <156035921069.14103.10047256808594559317.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Kumari Warren <warren@kumari.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz221.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz221.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Authenticated-Sender: biz221.inmotionhosting.com: eburger@standardstrack.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/Ly2t0GvNqvMxqI3DpfxX0h_b4T8>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 02:54:21 -0000

Your suggestion for my bizarre Base Rate Fallacy language makes is much clearer and also fixes similar issues raised by others. Thanks!

> On Jun 12, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Warren Kumari via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-sipcore-rejected-08: Yes
> 
> 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-rejected/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I generally approach SIP documents with a sense of foreboding — they are often
> long, expect a large amount of knowledge outside my area of expertise, and
> require lots of reference chasing — but this was a really good read. It
> describes the problem well, it lays out the protocol clearly, and contains
> enough humor / snark to make reading it actually enjoyable.
> 
> Nits:
> "Another value of the 607 rejection is presuming the proxy forwards
> the response code to the User Agent Client (UAC), the calling UAC or
> intervening proxies will also learn the user is not interested in
> receiving calls from that sender."
> I found this sentence really hard to parse -- I think adding a comma after "is"
> fixes it.
> 
> "An algorithm can be vulnerable to an algorithm subject to the base rate
> fallacy [BaseRate] rejecting the call." Unparsable -- duplication? Perhaps just
> " An algorithm can be vulnerable to the base rate fallacy [BaseRate] rejecting
> the call."?
> 
>