Re: [stir] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-stir-rfc4474bis-15: (with COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jon,

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016, at 02:14 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >COMMENT:
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >This is a well written document (despite giving too many deployment
> >choices in some areas). I have a short list of small issues/nits:
> >
> >In Section 4: ABNF for the signed-identity-digest allows empty string? Is
> >this intentional? If not, maybe use "1*" in front?
> 
> Um, right. Yeah we'll fix that.

Good.

> >In Section 5.1: are you missing an empty line between the header and the
> >SDP payload?
> 
> We can insert one.

Great, thanks.

> >In Section 6.2.2: is it customary in SIP to use the human readable
> >portion of error responses?
> 
> We're discussing that in the Ben thread, but

You haven't finished the sentence...

> >In Section 7.4: HTTP URIs need a reference.
> 
> Well... we meant here to use the URLs in RFC2585 (specifically in section
> 3, the "HTTP Conventions"), that RFC is ref'd at the end of the sentence.
> Is that adequate?

I suggest including both, as RFC 2585 is not even referencing RFC 2616.

> >In Section 8.4: URI-ID from RFC 6125 can be used for the subdomain case
> >as well?
> 
> 
> Hadn't considered it. I'm not aware how much uptake that has with SIP
> services, but we could look into it a bit.

This is similar to adding telephone numbers to certificates: CAs will
have to be updated to handle them. But yes, I am not going to push for
this to be adopted, even though I personally think it is a good idea.