Re: [sipcore] REMINDER: Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Paul,

In the context of 4244/-bis, the term domain is a DNS domain (per RFC 3261)
and not a SPEC-T Trust Domain per RFC 3325.  However, the specific
terminology we are referring to is also in RFC 3261 in that a SIP entity can
be responsible for multiple domains, which is not a Trust domain, but is
something that can be configured.  That's the context meant in RFC
4244/-bis.  It is outside the scope of RFC 3261 (and thus RFC 4244/-bis) as
to how those relationships are configured. It could certainly be done using
the Trust domain model, but again, that's out of scope.

If it helps, I can add in the terminology section that domain (and the
terminology around the domains for which an entity is responsible, etc. ) is
used in the same context as RFC 3261, but I personally don't think that
should be necessary.

Mary.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>> Actually, I did respond to that message, per the following:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg03088.html
>>
>> (threading in the email archives is no better than my archiving method for
>> emails).
>>
>
> Hmm. I cannot find that one anywhere in my own archives, and I don't recall
> seeing it. Don't know why. :-(
>
> That sentence is written within the context of core RFC 3261.  We really
>> didn't get into the RFC 3325 trust domain concept in RFC 4244 - in
>> particular because RFC 3325 is informational.  However, there is an UNLESS
>> later in that section:
>>
>> "...,unless the processing entity knows a priori that it can rely on a
>> downstream processing entity within its domain to apply the requested
>> privacy or local policy allows the forwarding."
>>
>> So, I will include that same clause in the sentence you are concerned
>> about.
>>
>
> That doesn't do it for me. I think one way or another you need to address
> whether "domain" means "DNS domain" or "trust domain". And if it means
> "trust domain" then of course we need a ref to 3325.
>
> You seem to mean DNS domain, but the kinds of actions you are discussing
> seem more related to 3323 and 3325. ISTM that if you mean DNS domain then
> you mean it based on an assumption that "DNS domain" = "trust domain".
>
>        Thanks,
>        Paul
>
> Thanks,
>> Mary.
>> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Mary Barnes <[e-mail]<mailto:
>> [e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>    Sorry, I should have replied to that thread, but I didn't think
>>    there was a change necessary.  I'll reply now.
>>
>>    Mary.
>>
>>    On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>        [as individual]
>>
>>        There was some discussion on the -00 version back in July that
>>        was not, AFAICT, addressed in the -01 version. There is a thread
>>        emanating from mary's announcement of the -00 version. The
>>        following is a hook into that thread:
>>
>>        http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipcore/current/msg03056.html
>>
>>        It has to do with when privacy should be applied.
>>
>>               Thanks,
>>               Paul
>>
>>
>>        Adam Roach wrote:
>>
>>
>>             [as chair]
>>
>>            As a reminder, we're just over halfway through this WGLC,
>>            and have not yet seen any comments. Please take some time to
>>            review this draft.
>>
>>            /a
>>
>>            On 8/16/10 4:29 PM, Adam Roach - SIPCORE Chair wrote:
>>
>>
>>                [as chair]
>>
>>                A major author of draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis-01
>>                believes that the document has no remaining open issues,
>>                and is ready for evaluation. Today, we are starting a
>>                two-week working group last call period. This last call
>>                period ends on Tuesday, August 31st.
>>
>>                The latest version of the document can be retrieved here:
>>
>>                http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis
>>
>>                Any comments on the document should be sent to the
>>                SIPCORE mailing list.
>>
>>                /a
>>
>>                _______________________________________________
>>                sipcore mailing list
>>                [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>                https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>>
>>            _______________________________________________
>>            sipcore mailing list
>>            [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>            https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        sipcore mailing list
>>        [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>>
>>
>>