Re: [sipcore] Fwd: AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 6/3/15 18:45, Ben Campbell wrote:
> -- section 1: "... clarity in [2119]"
>
> Do you really mean 2119, not 6665? That is, are you suggesting a lack 
> of clarity on what MUST means, or the lack of clarity in 6665 
> mentioned in section 2?

Yes, this should point to RFC 6665. I presume we can fix this with an 
RFC editor's note.

> -- section 2, last paragraph : "regardless of whether such
> subscription would be created by a SUBSCRIBE or a REFER message. "
>
> I suggest you consider adding "or any other method", to future proof 
> against people coming up with new ways to create subscriptions.

Section 4.2.1 of RFC 6665 is pretty clear about normatively forbidding 
new ways to create subscriptions. This was one of a small set of key 
flaws in the original 3265 mechanism that prompted work on a bis draft. 
I fear that adding "or any other method" would dilute the absolute 
prohibition on adding new methods by implying that some other method may 
somehow be allowed.

For easy reference: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6665#section-4.2.1

/a