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

Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Wed, 25 August 2010 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.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 8841B3A68EF for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.134, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 Y8eXeqQI3R6Y for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CD93A689C for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:17:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxk8 with SMTP id 8so360786yxk.31 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gKNT7Y56aWBuGN2OdbhPvkqkYXKDvod4W2ZJXbdbADU=; b=Oz+QIYEo0Q9PFW2DNVBU39VFU/trz++ybxwl8vYFCKRGzPXyOV+2kONpRYkLT2Sfel icuGGoNqfHZiqGtWIEtuBqJSYoL1puqwDbJmNAn9XwiHn+MYZR8Qk37iwWPZgfFOUucG pimQDkPb81eJ3R1ptqolriMsHd7LiTWs1sAps=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=e6LsEmRA4w25nCTEttyg9vTiytDajmhGqxP0KsBdq2Jw3hbh+t/+U0nAqQrxjNUqsM wYg/SSO/bWIz4GkMvFW6oOIGYbFqgCHlj6vl59gKbFWu+2zbZeizTvr3Swwye+CuFIFQ 4A51y8ceAAIH5oq+FhqwXiM4vJcQcA6BosvFw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.72.4 with SMTP id z4mr9562688ank.77.1282760293988; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.16.23 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:18:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C755A96.1090400@cisco.com>
References: <4C69ADA8.1010802@nostrum.com> <4C753AAA.3030407@nostrum.com> <4C754893.4080202@cisco.com> <AANLkTimBgKC_eZo1FGQWk-vYOTPRzgVZ7opGTj1h_0Zo@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik4_bNqiTLtJYxKcqbuiD=MuXY3opuuNahgqmjL@mail.gmail.com> <4C755A96.1090400@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:18:13 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTim=1U_ahk17eMCqfe4gqu-Nd8MM4VucSkJ6mxc9@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016368e1e5ba7b941048ea9e741
Cc: "SIPCORE \(Session Initiation Protocol Core\) WG" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] REMINDER: Re: WGLC: draft-ietf-sipcore-rfc4244bis
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: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:17:43 -0000

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 <pkyzivat@cisco.com> 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 <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com<mailtomailto:
>> mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>> 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 <pkyzivat@cisco.com
>>     <mailto:pkyzivat@cisco.com>> 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
>>                sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
>>
>>                https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>>
>>            _______________________________________________
>>            sipcore mailing list
>>            sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
>>
>>            https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        sipcore mailing list
>>        sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>
>>
>>        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
>>
>>
>>
>>