Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com> Mon, 08 November 2010 06:50 UTC
Return-Path: <shida@ntt-at.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 B65B33A69BA for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:50:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 Rt1pUxZWQS47 for <sipcore@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gateway05.websitewelcome.com (gateway05.websitewelcome.com [67.18.10.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A8803A69D8 for <sipcore@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:49:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 5838 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2010 06:49:50 -0000
Received: from gator465.hostgator.com (69.56.174.130) by gateway05.websitewelcome.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2010 06:49:50 -0000
Received: from [130.129.65.133] (port=51964 helo=dhcp-4185.meeting.ietf.org) by gator465.hostgator.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <shida@ntt-at.com>) id 1PFLYS-0005T4-QC; Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:50:14 -0600
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Shida Schubert <shida@ntt-at.com>
In-Reply-To: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA02357AD547@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:50:13 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E920C682-46EF-4D81-836F-7D23AAB6EA1B@ntt-at.com>
References: <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA0235546D2F@MCHP058A.global-ad.net> <A5DC4410-2B76-4EC6-B39A-1FFF5F04B853@ntt-at.com> <AANLkTikXeBRvTaDg8ZX+TsqG_ZL24FUiQFf2se5UAgcm@mail.gmail.com> <A444A0F8084434499206E78C106220CA02357AD547@MCHP058A.global-ad.net>
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator465.hostgator.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - ntt-at.com
Cc: "Barnes, Mary" <Mary.Barnes@polycom.com>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02
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: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 06:50:08 -0000
Hi John; My comments inline. On Nov 8, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Elwell, John wrote: > Replying to both Shida and Mary: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mary Barnes [mailto:mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com] >> Sent: 08 November 2010 05:19 >> To: Shida Schubert >> Cc: Elwell, John; Barnes, Mary; sipcore@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 >> >> A few additional comments inline below [MB]. >> >> Mary. >> >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Shida Schubert >> <shida@ntt-at.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi John; >>> >>> My responses on some of the comments, I think >>> Mary may be responding on the same issues but here are mine. >>> >>> On Nov 4, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Elwell, John wrote: >>> >>>> 1. Section 7.3.1. >>>> "If there is a Privacy header in the request with a priv- >>>> value of "header" or "history", then the initial hi-entry MUST be >>>> anonymized and the header removed when the request >> leaves a domain >>>> for which the SIP entity is responsible." >>>> I think it should say "...and the Privacy header removed" >> - there is no point in removing the H-I header field if we >> have anonymized it. >>> >>> You are right. The intention was to say "remove the >> priv-value and remove the privacy >>> header itself if there are no other priv-value left (id may >> exists which needs >>> to remain in the request until it reaches the egress point)". >>> >>>> >>>> 2. What is meant by anonymizing a hi-entry (in this >> paragraph and elsewhere)? Is it only the hi-targeted-to-uri >> that needs to be anonymized, or also its parameters? The >> examples in annex B show just the URI anonymized and with the >> value anonymous@anonymous.invalid. Is this how it MUST be done? >> >> [MB] It is only the hi-targeted-to-uri that needs to be anonymized - >> it is a MUST. The other parameters MUST not be changed. [/MB] > [JRE] You didn't express any opinion whether we should mandate the way in which hi-targeted-uri is to be anonymized. To avoid redundant anonymization in case there are numerous proxy acting as a privacy services, it would be good to mandate how hi-targeted-uri is anonymized, so I am happy to say MUST here. > > <snip/> > >>>> 8. "MUST be calculated by incrementing the last/lowest digit >>>> at the current level" >>>> and >>>> "That is, the lowest/last digit of the index MUST be >>>> incremented " >>>> What if an index is a double-digit integer? >>> >>> How about we remove the "lowest/last" and simply >>> say incrementing the digit at the current level by 1 or >>> something like that. > [JRE] Why can't we specify the field as an integer, and then we can say we increment the integer? Sounds good to me. > >>>> 9. Section 8: >>>> "an >>>> application might need to provide special handling in some cases >>>> where there are gaps." >>>> Should there be a note discussing the fact that some gaps >> are not detectable, e.g., if I receive 1, 1.1 and 1.1.1, I >> cannot detect if 1.2 or 1.1.2, say, is missing. >>> >>> This would happen, say for example if request was >>> parallel forked, each branch would have the hi-entry >>> that only the forked request traversed but missing >>> the information of the other forks. I don't know if I would >>> consider what you describe as a gap. You may be >>> missing the other branches but you should be able to >>> identify the gap in index for the branch that request >>> traversed. (You may be missing the actual hop in the >>> logical tree of History-Info that does not support >>> 4244/4244bis but as they won't add the hi-entry >>> there won't be a gap in index itself). > [JRE] Yes, I understand that, and that is why I just asked the question - I don't have a strong opinion as to whether this is good enough or not. I think we can definitely add a text saying the hi-entries an entity receives may not represent the whole picture of where request was sent (other branches etc.). Regards Shida > > <snip/> > > John
- [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Elwell, John
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Shida Schubert
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Mary Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Elwell, John
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Shida Schubert
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Mary Barnes
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 R.Jesske
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Shida Schubert
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Shida Schubert
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 R.Jesske
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Ian Elz
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Ian Elz
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 R.Jesske
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Ian Elz
- Re: [sipcore] Yet more comments on rfc4244bis-02 Ian Elz