Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: (with COMMENT)
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Tue, 22 March 2016 05:08 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: siprec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CFE412D094; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:08:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 Mn2vN_2I5VNe; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:08:40 -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 BEB3E12D0C3; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.10] (cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u2M58ZAD010180 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:08:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-119-203-4.tx.res.rr.com [70.119.203.4] claimed to be [10.0.1.10]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Ram Mohan R <rmohanr@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:08:34 -0500
Message-ID: <9C97880E-2DBF-4ABF-854D-BB1CF3FA4907@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <D316BFF1.55AE9%rmohanr@cisco.com>
References: <20160302002515.30664.79446.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <D2FD1094.53195%rmohanr@cisco.com> <2025D20B-7234-4CE3-9E34-E3C0AAFAD5BC@nostrum.com> <D306EF2B.53FCA%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D0FA9505-C980-427F-9ECC-EB72CCF911DA@nostrum.com> <D30E0649.54969%rmohanr@cisco.com> <A00B8D51-2512-404B-A980-D5BE238A9216@nostrum.com> <D30ECEB4.54AFA%rmohanr@cisco.com> <815C00AF-652C-4090-9370-E97AE2BBCE9E@nostrum.com> <D312E9CD.55682%rmohanr@cisco.com> <D113E237-A33A-45A2-945E-9069FD2F4D4B@nostrum.com> <D316BFF1.55AE9%rmohanr@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/siprec/ApKfOeSsCxPOnjBstrI1-AXC_qQ>
Cc: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org>, ART ADs <art-ads@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: siprec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Recording Working Group Discussion List <siprec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/siprec>, <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/siprec/>
List-Post: <mailto:siprec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/siprec>, <mailto:siprec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 05:08:44 -0000
All of your responses look good to me. Thanks! Ben. On 21 Mar 2016, at 22:51, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for your review. See inline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> > Date: Monday, 21 March 2016 at 11:39 PM > To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> > Cc: "siprec@ietf.org" <siprec@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ART ADs > <art-ads@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: > (with COMMENT) > >> (Adding back ADs and IESG) >> >> This version looks mostly good. I have one substantive comment, and a >> few editorial: >> >> # Substantive # >> >> - 10: (Apologies, I missed this when we discussed the text via mail) >> >> I like the change to refer back to the protocol spec for the normative >> bits in the first paragraph. However, saying those procedures MUST be >> implemented doesn't seem right, since 12.3 of that draft says metadata >> SHOULD be protected. That is, the protocol spec says MUST implement, and >> SHOULD use (for metadata). >> >> I propose a simple fix: s/"MUST be implemented by"/"apply for the" (Or >> "MUST be followed by", if you really want to keep a 2119 statement >> keyword. > > I will keep the text to “MUST be followed by” > >> >> >> # Editorial # >> >> - 6.2, last paragraph: "One instance of a Communication Session >> Group(CS-Group) class namely the CS-Group object provides association or >> grouping all related CS." >> >> Something's not right with that sentence. Is there a missing "for" or >> "of" before "all related CS"? (And shouldn't that be "all related CSs"? > > Right will add - “of all related CSs” > >> >> - 6.5.1, name-id: >> >> Consider moving the reference for P-AID to the first mention of it. > > Ok. > >> >> (Yes, I realize that's not really new text ;-) ) >> >> - 6.10 "If two SRCs use the same UUID, it MUST retain the UUID/element >> mapping." > > NEW: > If two SRCs use the same UUID, they MUST retain the UUID/element mapping. > > Regards, > Ram > >> >> Ambiguous antecedent for "it". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 19 Mar 2016, at 0:56, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: >> >>> Hi Ben, >>> >>> I just published the new revision. Please review this whenever you get >>> time. >>> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-siprec-metadata/ >>> >>> >>> Diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-21 >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Ram >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> >>> Date: Wednesday, 16 March 2016 at 9:36 AM >>> To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>> Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "siprec@ietf.org" >>> <siprec@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-siprec-metadata@ietf.org" >>> <draft-ietf-siprec-metadata@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, >>> "siprec-chairs@ietf.org" <siprec-chairs@ietf.org>, Brian Rosen >>> <br@brianrosen.net> >>> Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on >>> draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: >>> (with COMMENT) >>> >>>> I'm going to be on the road for the rest of the week. I will try to >>>> fit >>>> in a look at the diff, but please do not hold submission on my behalf >>>> (revisions are cheap). Failing that, I should be able to look at it >>>> by >>>> Monday or Tuesday. >>>> >>>> Ben. >>>> >>>> On 15 Mar 2016, at 22:15, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> Please find the diffs attached. This addresses Stephen¹s and Ben¹s >>>>> IESG >>>>> comments. Please check and let me know if this is fine. I will >>>>> publish >>>>> the >>>>> revision by end of this week. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Ram >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> >>>>> Date: Tuesday, 15 March 2016 at 7:52 PM >>>>> To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>>>> Cc: "draft-ietf-siprec-metadata@ietf.org" >>>>> <draft-ietf-siprec-metadata@ietf.org>, "siprec@ietf.org" >>>>> <siprec@ietf.org>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, >>>>> "siprec-chairs@ietf.org" <siprec-chairs@ietf.org> >>>>> Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on >>>>> draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: >>>>> (with COMMENT) >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ram, >>>>>> >>>>>> It all looks good to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 15 Mar 2016, at 8:00, Ram Mohan R (rmohanr) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ben, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for review. See inline. Removed those that does not need >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> response (which you have accepted). Will send diffs to WG and >>>>>>> reviewers >>>>>>> soon with all the comments incorporated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> >>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, 15 March 2016 at 12:36 AM >>>>>>> To: Cisco Employee <rmohanr@cisco.com> >>>>>>> Cc: "draft-ietf-siprec-metadata@ietf.org" >>>>>>> <draft-ietf-siprec-metadata@ietf.org>, "siprec@ietf.org" >>>>>>> <siprec@ietf.org>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net>, The IESG >>>>>>> <iesg@ietf.org>, "siprec-chairs@ietf.org" <siprec-chairs@ietf.org> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Ben Campbell's No Objection on >>>>>>> draft-ietf-siprec-metadata-20: >>>>>>> (with COMMENT) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now that you've added the reference, you may not need the >>>>>>>>>> normative >>>>>>>>>> language here. Is the RECOMMENDED something new beyond what is >>>>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>> required in siprec-protocol? (I am pretty sure the MUST is >>>>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>> covered there.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right. I have fixed this after discussion with Stephen. New text >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> para >>>>>>>>> 1 in Security Consideration is: >>>>>>>>> Para 2 is removed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>>> This document describes an extensive set of metadata that may be >>>>>>>>> recorded >>>>>>>>> by the SRS. Most of the >>>>>>>>> metadata could be considered private data. The procedures >>>>>>>>> mentioned >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> security consideration >>>>>>>>> section of <xref target="I-D.ietf-siprec-protocol"/> MUST be >>>>>>>>> implemented >>>>>>>>> by SRC and SRS for >>>>>>>>> mutual authentication and to protect the content of the >>>>>>>>> metadata >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> RS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some implementations may have the SRC choose parts of metadata >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> can be >>>>>>>>> sent to the SRS. >>>>>>>>> In other cases, SRCs may send metadata that is not appropriate >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> SRS >>>>>>>>> to record. Which >>>>>>>>> metadata is actually recorded by the SRS must be carefully >>>>>>>>> considered >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> balance privacy >>>>>>>>> concerns with usability. Implementations MUST control what >>>>>>>>> metadata is >>>>>>>>> recorded, and MUST NOT >>>>>>>>> save metadata sent by the SRC that does not conform to the >>>>>>>>> recording >>>>>>>>> policy of the SRS. >>>>>>>>> Metadata in storage needs to be provided with a level of >>>>>>>>> security >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> comparable to that >>>>>>>>> of the recording session. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps s/"control what metadata is recorded"/"limit what >>>>>>>> metadata >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> recorded" ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see that Paul and you have discussed in the other thread and >>>>>>> came >>>>>>> up >>>>>>> with text for this part. I will use that text here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NEW: (Taken from your mail with Paul) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "An SRC MAY, by policy, choose to limit the parts of the metadata >>>>>>> sent >>>>>>> to the SRS for recording. And the policy of the SRS might not >>>>>>> require >>>>>>> all the metadata it receives. For the sake of data minimization, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> SRS >>>>>>> MUST NOT record additional metadata that is not explicitly >>>>>>> required >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> local policy. Metadata in storage needs to be provided with a >>>>>>> level >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> security that is comparable to that of the recording session." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - 13.2: I think RFCs 3325 and 3326 need to be normative >>>>>>>>>>>> references. >>>>>>>>>>>> That's an issue for 3325, but section 6.5.1 normatively >>>>>>>>>>>> states >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> P-AID >>>>>>>>>>>> is a potential source for nameID. (which should probably be >>>>>>>>>>>> scoped >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> only be true for deployments where P-AID makes sense.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Fine. We can make reference to 3325 and 3326 normative. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On reflection, I think I've changed my mind on suggesting 3325 >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> normative. In the description of the nameID attribute, it would >>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>> better to say that nameID is the AoR of the participant, and >>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>> non-normatively mention examples of where that might come from >>>>>>>>>> (including P-AID as one of those examples.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WFM. I will modify the text to make it non-normative. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NEW: >>>>>>>>> The AoR is drawn from From header or P-Asserted-Identity header >>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>> Remote-Party-ID header. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suggest going a little further, such as "... For example, the >>>>>>>> AoR >>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>> be drawn from the From header field or P-Asserted-Identity header >>>>>>>> field." (eliding RPID as mentioned earlier) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WFM. Will add the suggested text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And now that I look at that paragraph again, I wonder if an >>>>>>>>>> RFC4424/4424bis identity assertion should be listed as an >>>>>>>>>> example >>>>>>>>>> source? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am fine with adding RFC4424 Identity assertion header as one >>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>> nameID. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On reflection, the actual AoR would still come from From, etc, >>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>> 4474/4474bis. So the mention is probably not needed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok. Will not add this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will send out diffs with all the comments incorporated soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Ram >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ram >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [...]
- [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-iet… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ben Campbell
- Re: [siprec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft… Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)