Re: [stir] Second proposal for update of erratum #6519

Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> Fri, 23 April 2021 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
X-Original-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D865B3A1722 for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 EnRIX4Gu_kVl for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [92.243.22.217]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7080B3A171C for <stir@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:648:8400:8e7d:d250:99ff:fedf:93cd] (unknown [IPv6:2601:648:8400:8e7d:d250:99ff:fedf:93cd]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EE4EAE21E; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 19:12:47 +0200 (CEST)
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
References: <86592ac3-85d1-bdfa-687e-828dc239322b@petit-huguenin.org> <CAD5OKxsZWy3cTMRTe+d_sXvHEkiV0DzLLuwgOLqZ_7BzUn1ZhQ@mail.gmail.com> <1ae272b9-ad1b-8030-3815-f21747aa6698@petit-huguenin.org> <17F04CA6-FC76-4A2A-BC2C-8171C2343AE6@vigilsec.com>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
Message-ID: <2304ba59-08db-8b74-394a-d4e4a315dacf@petit-huguenin.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 10:12:46 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <17F04CA6-FC76-4A2A-BC2C-8171C2343AE6@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stir/hd13G3f_tfhI_om8kJvJMjL68fw>
Subject: Re: [stir] Second proposal for update of erratum #6519
X-BeenThere: stir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Telephone Identity Revisited <stir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stir/>
List-Post: <mailto:stir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir>, <mailto:stir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 17:12:55 -0000

On 4/23/21 10:04 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Should the ABNF allow whitespace after the second DQUOTE?  At one point in this discussion, we had a proposal that did.

I think that it is not necessary:

1. If there is an additional parameter after this one, then the SEMI rule already permits SWS before the ";".
2. As far as I can tell (that would require checking all SIP extensions) whitespaces are never allowed before the final CRLF.

> 
> Russ
> 
>> On Apr 23, 2021, at 12:24 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> wrote:
>>
>> Any other comment from the WG on my second proposal?
>>
>> On 4/20/21 3:33 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>> I think this covers all of my comments and addresses my initial errata.
>>> Thank you,
>>> _____________
>>> Roman Shpount
>>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 5:38 PM Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> This is a refreshed proposal for the update of erratum #6519, which I
>>>> tried to collect all the parts where we have somehow consensus.  As before,
>>>> "Original Text" and "Corrected Text" refer to the names of the erratum
>>>> fields, not to the current content:
>>>>
>>>> - Original Text:
>>>>
>>>> Section 4 says:
>>>>
>>>>    ident-type = "ppt" EQUAL token
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Corrected Text:
>>>>
>>>> It should say:
>>>>
>>>>    ident-type =  "ppt" EQUAL ( token / ( DQUOTE token DQUOTE ) )
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore in the second paragraph of section 4, the following sentence
>>>> should be inserted after 'defines the optional "ppt" parameter (PASSporT
>>>> Type).':
>>>>
>>>>    Implementations SHOULD use quotes around the token when sending and MUST
>>>> accept the token with or without the quotes around it when receiving.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly in the fourth bullet of the first list in section 4.1, the
>>>> sentence '...a value equivalent to the quoted value of the "ppt"
>>>> parameter...' is replaced by:
>>>>
>>>>    ...a quoted value whose unquoted part is equivalent to the token in the
>>>> "ppt" parameter, normalized to contain only lowercase characters...
>>>>
>>>> Finally in the first paragraph of section 9, the sentence '...The "ppt"
>>>> parameter value MUST consist of a token...' is replaced by:
>>>>
>>>>    ...The "ppt" parameter value MUST consist of a token (between quotes)...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Notes:
>>>>
>>>> Based on discussions in the STIR WG, implementations should use the quoted
>>>> form when sending, but should accept both forms when receiving.  Regardless
>>>> of the presence of the quotes, the content is treated as a token, i.e. is
>>>> case-insensitive as explained in RFC 3261 section 7.3.1.  Note also that
>>>> the new syntax does not allow for spaces immediately before or immediately
>>>> after the token when quoted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>


-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug