Re: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis - privacy syntax

"Dale Worley" <dworley@nortel.com> Fri, 10 July 2009 20:24 UTC

Return-Path: <dworley@nortel.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 6802228C361 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.115, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 WnJ5zmkQ5KHa for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com (zcars04e.nortel.com [47.129.242.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFB723A6E83 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com (casmtp.ca.nortel.com [47.140.202.46]) by zcars04e.nortel.com (Switch-2.2.0/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id n6AKMmj18067 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:22:49 GMT
Received: from [47.16.90.165] ([47.16.90.165]) by zrtphxs1.corp.nortel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:24:26 -0400
From: Dale Worley <dworley@nortel.com>
To: Francois Audet <audet@nortel.com>
In-Reply-To: <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1EE8A67C@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
References: <1246996560.5962.37.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1EDE5C07@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com> <1247077928.3712.26.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <1ECE0EB50388174790F9694F77522CCF1EE8A67C@zrc2hxm0.corp.nortel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Nortel Networks
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:24:24 -0400
Message-Id: <1247257464.3757.67.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-5.fc8)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2009 20:24:26.0032 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B4E9B00:01CA019C]
Cc: SIPCORE <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] draft-barnes-sipcore-rfc4244bis - privacy syntax
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:24:15 -0000

On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 14:07 -0400, Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) wrote:
> It's basically saying that the Privacy and Reason "escaped parameters" would 
> translate into headers if we were to created a request based on it.

I can't see any circumstances where we would want to create a request
that included the Privacy or Reason headers from a H-I entry.

In regard to Privacy, if its value is "history", that means that the
particular H-I URI should be restricted.  But that is not the meaning of
adding the "Privacy: history" header to a request -- in the latter case,
History-Info should not be generated at all.  (Which is what I mean when
I say "the values of Privacy in History-Info do not have the same
semantics as the values of the Privacy header".)

In regard to Reason, as far as I can tell, it is attached to an H-I
entry to show the response that was received to the request that was
sent to that URI.  Generating a request based on that H-I entry would
create a request to that same URI, containing a Reason header in the
request that *predicts* the response that the request will receive.

Given that in no case would we want to generate and use (with the
implicit headers) a request based on the H-I entry's URI-with-headers, I
don't see why these data items are stored in headers attached to the
URI.

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 19:25 -0400, Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00) wrote:
> As far as privacy, I'm not sure what you mean with regards
> to " This privacy value is an annotation of the URI, whereas the current
> syntax incorporates it *into* the URI."  The privacy value isn't
> incorporated into the URI - it's an escaped parameter.

It's an escaped parameter, but it *is* part of the URI -- see the
production "SIP-URI" in section 25.1 of RFC 3261.  And if you ask the
grammar, "What is the URI part of an H-I entry?" you will get back the
'headers' as part of the URI.

Similarly, any device or syntax which admits a SIP URI will allow you to
enter a string containing 'headers'.  Indeed, there is only one
situation where a SIP URI is possible but that URI cannot contain
'headers', and that is as the request-URI of a request.  That isn't
specified in the syntax (which allows SIP-URI), but is a consequence of
the processing in section 19.1.5, which removes the 'headers' from the
supplied SIP URI and turns them into message headers.

Dale