Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02

Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <shida@ntt-at.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 2705F3A6774 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:32:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gEzfsUpkDjxS for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:32:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway01.websitewelcome.com (gateway01.websitewelcome.com [69.41.248.83]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 00B5C3A6452 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:32:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 14903 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2010 08:32:24 -0000
Received: from gator465.hostgator.com (69.56.174.130) by gateway01.websitewelcome.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2010 08:32:24 -0000
Received: from [130.129.65.133] (port=52331 helo=dhcp-4185.meeting.ietf.org) by gator465.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <shida@ntt-at.com>) id 1PFN99-0005pu-GJ; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 02:32:23 -0600
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>
In-Reply-To: <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD406D5CF89@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 17:32:06 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3D738383-240F-4E46-AD44-24601C1C297C@ntt-at.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0235546D2F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net><A5DC4410-2B76-4EC6-B39A-1FFF5F04B853@ntt-at.com><AANLkTikXeBRvTaDg8ZX+TsqG_ZL24FUiQFf2se5UAgcm@mail.gmail.com><A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA02357AD547@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <E920C682-46EF-4D81-836F-7D23AAB6EA1B@ntt-at.com> <9886E5FCA6D76549A3011068483A4BD406D5CF89@S4DE8PSAAQB.mitte.t-com.de>
To: <R.Jesske@telekom.de> <R.Jesske@telekom.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator465.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ntt-at.com
Cc: sipcore@ietf.org, Mary.Barnes@polycom.com
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
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: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 08:32:05 -0000

Hi Roland;

 I meant to say, mandate the use of domain name "anonymous.invalid" as 
it is mandated in RFC3323 and used as a means to distinguish anonymized 
URI in RFC5079. This would help privacy service to see if other privacy 
service has already obfuscated the URI in H-I. 

 Regards
  Shida


On Nov 8, 2010, at 4:55 PM, <R.Jesske@telekom.de> <R.Jesske@telekom.de> wrote:

> Shida,
> Do I understand you correct that you woulf like to mandate the uri format e.g. anonymus@anonymus,invalid? 
> Why you would like it to be stronger than in RFC3323 mandated?
> 
> Best Regards
> 
> Roland
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: sipcore-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:sipcore-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Shida Schubert
> Gesendet: Montag, 8. November 2010 07:50
> An: Elwell, John
> Cc: Barnes, Mary; sipcore@ietf.org
> Betreff: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
> 
> 
> Hi John;
> 
> My comments inline.
> 
> On Nov 8, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Elwell, John wrote:
> 
>> Replying to both Shida and Mary: 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com] 
>>> Sent: 08 November 2010 05:19
>>> To: Shida Schubert
>>> Cc: Elwell, John; Barnes, Mary; sipcore@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
>>> 
>>> A few additional comments inline below [MB].
>>> 
>>> Mary.
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Shida Schubert 
>>> <shida@ntt-at.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi John;
>>>> 
>>>> My responses on some of the comments, I think
>>>> Mary may be responding on the same issues but here are mine.
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 4, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Elwell, John wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Section 7.3.1.
>>>>> "If there is a Privacy header in the request with a priv-
>>>>>  value of "header" or "history", then the initial hi-entry MUST be
>>>>>  anonymized and the header removed when the request 
>>> leaves a domain
>>>>>  for which the SIP entity is responsible."
>>>>> I think it should say "...and the Privacy header removed" 
>>> - there is no point in removing the H-I header field if we 
>>> have anonymized it.
>>>> 
>>>> You are right. The intention was to say "remove the 
>>> priv-value and remove the privacy
>>>> header itself if there are no other priv-value left (id may 
>>> exists which needs
>>>> to remain in the request until it reaches the egress point)".
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. What is meant by anonymizing a hi-entry (in this 
>>> paragraph and elsewhere)? Is it only the hi-targeted-to-uri 
>>> that needs to be anonymized, or also its parameters? The 
>>> examples in annex B show just the URI anonymized and with the 
>>> value anonymous@anonymous.invalid. Is this how it MUST be done?
>>> 
>>> [MB] It is only the hi-targeted-to-uri that needs to be anonymized -
>>> it is a MUST. The other parameters MUST not be changed. [/MB]
>> [JRE] You didn't express any opinion whether we should mandate the way in which hi-targeted-uri is to be anonymized.
> 
> To avoid redundant anonymization in case there are numerous 
> proxy acting as a privacy services, it would be good to mandate 
> how hi-targeted-uri is anonymized, so I am happy to say MUST 
> here. 
> 
>> 
>> <snip/>
>> 
>>>>> 8. "MUST be calculated by incrementing the last/lowest digit
>>>>>      at the current level"
>>>>> and
>>>>> "That is, the lowest/last digit of the index MUST be
>>>>>      incremented "
>>>>> What if an index is a double-digit integer?
>>>> 
>>>> How about we remove the "lowest/last" and simply
>>>> say incrementing the digit at the current level by 1 or
>>>> something like that.
>> [JRE] Why can't we specify the field as an integer, and then we can say we increment the integer?
> 
> Sounds good to me. 
> 
>> 
>>>>> 9. Section 8:
>>>>> "an
>>>>>  application might need to provide special handling in some cases
>>>>>  where there are gaps."
>>>>> Should there be a note discussing the fact that some gaps 
>>> are not detectable, e.g., if I receive 1, 1.1 and 1.1.1, I 
>>> cannot detect if 1.2 or 1.1.2, say, is missing.
>>>> 
>>>> This would happen, say for example if request was
>>>> parallel forked, each branch would have the hi-entry
>>>> that only the forked request traversed but missing
>>>> the information of the other forks. I don't know if I would
>>>> consider what you describe as a gap. You may be
>>>> missing the other branches but you should be able to
>>>> identify the gap in index for the branch that request
>>>> traversed. (You may be missing the actual hop in the
>>>> logical tree of History-Info that does not support
>>>> 4244/4244bis but as they won't add the hi-entry
>>>> there won't be a gap in index itself).
>> [JRE] Yes, I understand that, and that is why I just asked the question - I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this is good enough or not.
> 
> I think we can definitely add a text saying the hi-entries 
> an entity receives may not represent the whole picture 
> of where request was sent (other branches etc.). 
> 
> Regards
>  Shida
> 
>> 
>> <snip/>
>> 
>> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore