IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05 - PULL REQUEST

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Sat, 27 May 2017 01:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipcore@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E125129BD8; Fri, 26 May 2017 18:36:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.881
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ie7AZgiyhGfB; Fri, 26 May 2017 18:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0ACC8129BB5; Fri, 26 May 2017 18:36:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.63] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v4R1aaeQ072380 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 26 May 2017 20:36:37 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.63]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <645392ed-901f-e6c7-6b19-03ef31fb9865@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:36:36 -0500
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id.all@ietf.org>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7EE79107-041E-4725-B40C-D1C8350F7411@nostrum.com>
References: <D54DF3B2.1D309%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <528630A5-051A-4116-9D5C-79755DF347B3@nostrum.com> <645392ed-901f-e6c7-6b19-03ef31fb9865@nostrum.com>
To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/sipcore/z0kRJK8TRrPUL07GnvAAwII1sCM>
Subject: Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05 - PULL REQUEST
X-BeenThere: sipcore@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Core Working Group <sipcore.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sipcore>, <mailto:sipcore-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 27 May 2017 01:36:42 -0000

> On May 26, 2017, at 2:28 PM, A. Jean Mahoney <mahoney@nostrum.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> On 5/26/17 11:27 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> On May 26, 2017, at 6:58 AM, Christer Holmberg
>>> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Ben,
>>> I have created a pull request, based on your comments:
>>> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-content-id/pull/6
>> The diff looks fine. We probably want to make sure the WG shares the
>> opinion that the Content-ID will never be referenced from outside the
>> SIP message.
>> Jean, do  you have thoughts on that from the shepherd perspective?
> 
> The WG did discuss whether the Content-ID could be used outside of the message. The takeaway was, that since a SIP header has non-MIME fields, the Content-ID can't really refer to the entire message, and thus would not be useful outside the message.
> 

There seems to be two ideas intertwined there; namely the idea of what a content-ID identifies, and the idea of whether a content-ID could be referred to from outside the containing SIP message. But I take your comment to mean that both were discussed. Is that correct?

Thanks!

Ben.

> Anyone have any input on the changes to the draft?
> 
> Jean
> 
> PS - nit: Campbell is misspelled in the "Change Log".
> 
> 
>>> However, I wasnąt sure how to address the following comment:
>>> "1.2 and 1.3: A sentence or two that more strongly contrasts "body
>>> part" vs "message-body" would be helpful. I think that some people
>>> will think of a message-body as still a body-part.˛
>>> I think section 1.1 describes the difference between a message-body
>>> and a body-part. I donąt think we should copy/paste that in
>>> sections 1.2 and 1.3. Or, did I misunderstand you comment?
>> On reflection, I think this might be fine like it is. I know that
>> some people casually refer to the entire body as still a “part”, but
>> that doesn’t seem to be reflected in the MIME RFCs. Let’s see if
>> anyone comments in LC.
>>> Regards,
>>> Christer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email