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

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

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