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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Mary,

I don't think that does it either. Let me try to explain another way:

The privacy feature you describe extends the behavior of priv-values 
"session" and "header" that are specified in 3323. (And also adds a new 
value "history".) In 3323 there is a lot of text describing the privacy 
service, and what it does based on priv-values when it is processing a 
request or response. There is also a bunch of text discussing what the 
UA should do to ensure that the request or response reaches a suitable 
privacy service that will act according to its wishes.

RFC 3325 extends this, with the introduction of trust domains. And 
importantly, it says (not in so many words, but effectively) that 
proxies on the edge of a trust domain are to act as privacy services 
with respect to the priv-val of "id". (It doesn't say they act as a 
privacy service for anything else.)

4244bis section 6.3.2 says:

    If the requestor has indicated a priv-
    value of "session" or "header" in the request, all History-Info
    entries MUST be anonymized when the request leaves a domain for which
    the intermediary is responsible.

It does *not* say what is responsible for doing that. Since this is a 
modification to 3323, I would presume that it is a privacy service as 
specified in 3323 that would be carrying this out. If so, it can only do 
so for the values that are present when it gets the request, and then 
only if its passing the request on to a node that is not in its domain.
If users were to follow the guidelines of 3323, the privacy service 
would be the first server the request reaches after leaving the UAC, and 
thus would have little value.

The is what led me to think you meant trust domains. Because I think the 
behavior you are looking for is more like what 3325 does for "id" 
privacy. But of course that only works in an environment that has trust 
domains and entities charged with carrying out some privacy service 
functions at the edge of the domain. But as it stands those aren't 
charged with implementing "session" or "header" privacy.

So, I don't understand what entitiy you expect to carry out this 
particular new privacy service act. One way or another I think this 
document will have to find a way to say that.

	Thanks,
	Paul

Mary Barnes wrote:
> 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] 
> <mailto:[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]>
>         <mailto:[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]>
>            <mailto:[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]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>                        https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 
> 
>                    _______________________________________________
>                    sipcore mailing list
>                    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>                    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 
>                _______________________________________________
>                sipcore mailing list
>                [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> 
>                https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore
> 
> 
> 
>