Re: [stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info

Please see inline for comments/answers.

Thanks,
Tolga

From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 1:55 PM
To: Asveren, Tolga <tasveren@rbbn.com>; stir@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info

________________________________
NOTICE: This email was received from an EXTERNAL sender
________________________________

Hi,

I have some questions regarding this. Some of the questions have also been raised by Keith (or are at least related):

Q1: As the purpose of draft-york-p-charge-info is document existing implementations and usage of the PCI header field, the first question is whether we should define “enhancements” and new usages of the PCI header field?
[TOLGA] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info does not add new functionality for P-Charge-Info per se. It merely add verification capability for it.

Q2: You should describe in what kind of environments this is needed.
[TOLGA]Noted and will add it in the next version -among other things-.

Q3: As draft-york-p-charge-info is to be published as an Informational RFC, should draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info also be Informational? A PASSporT extension is “Specification Required”, so I assume an Informational RFC qualifies.
[TOLGA]thanks for the feedback. I don’t have a problem with that and would follow what is required from procedures perspective and will change it to “Informational”.

Q4: The text in Section 4.3 says:

   "An entity dropping P-Charge-Info MUST drop the corresponding Identity

   header with "ppt" parameter value of "pci”."

        First, I assume you mean “an entity supporting the pci PASSporT”?

        Second, entities that only support the PCI header field, but not the pci PASSporT, will not remove the corresponding Identity header field. I think you need some text about that.
 [TOLGA] I think this depends on what is meant by “supporting pci PASSPortT”. An entity can still remove it if it is aware of “pci” but does not support it in terms of adding/verifying pci Identity. OTOH, an entity completely unaware of “pci” wouldn’t be able to do so. I will add some text about this.

Q5: The text in section 3 says:

              "If P-Charge-Info header is added or by the…”

              Is there something missing between “or” and “by”?
[TOLGA] “added or by” => “added or modified by”

Regards,

Christer

From: stir <stir-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:stir-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of "Asveren, Tolga" <tasveren@rbbn.com<mailto:tasveren@rbbn.com>>
Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 2:45 PM
To: "stir@ietf.org<mailto:stir@ietf.org>" <stir@ietf.org<mailto:stir@ietf.org>>
Subject: [stir] draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info

I just submitted draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info:

https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info-00..txt<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asveren-stir-p-charge-info-00.txt>

It defines a new claim type for P-Charge-Info.

P-Charge-Info is going through the last steps of becoming a RFC in SIPCore WG and I though it would be a good idea to start working on/kicking off discussions about the corresponding STIR support as it is used to carry sensitive information for billing.

And here is the link for P-Charge-Info draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-york-p-charge-info-07

Feedback/ideas/suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks,
Tolga
_______________________________________________ stir mailing list stir@ietf.org<mailto:stir@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir