Re: [stir] Proposal for update of erratum #6519 - ppt syntax

Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> Fri, 23 April 2021 16:41 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 4A0A83A15EC for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:41:58 -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 ftB55738-afw for <stir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:45:216:3eff:fe7f:7abd]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923B83A15EB for <stir@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:41:53 -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 76E4DAE21E; Fri, 23 Apr 2021 18:41:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
References: <42e964d3-2a16-660b-f8b4-fd9daedad115@petit-huguenin.org> <AM0PR07MB3860EC9A134E1ECFBB1567E093479@AM0PR07MB3860.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxtw6iUyBcyF_UDxDDh1Fa8tZ5cWy214r1Hn5ZoPSGQ3AQ@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR07MB3860C025F8289133102F41BF93469@AM0PR07MB3860.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxt2ZC+HZGL1XXZZV7O-shteL_dHLtrb52Dc=rjkr23-Mw@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR07MB3860150680CE215BE0BB52B493469@AM0PR07MB3860.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxtNO8inv_K4ZxefHO1XCHV2QtfYo2e+MFF7cvRobFSjkQ@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR07MB38605A8F3ACFA67792C4545293469@AM0PR07MB3860.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxtA_T0nBhZ9GJcF3vOLxj3FjsMq+AiAOAawVnKx3Fff2A@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR07MB3860949BF3B90DA1617244E593469@AM0PR07MB3860.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <4936d7d9-6dd7-0408-4ce8-54b99346ac40@petit-huguenin.org> <AM0PR07MB386080E238B7EBAB26897FED93459@AM0PR07MB3860.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <fe318be6-3f55-3cd7-2507-4e5e68b0de02@petit-huguenin.org>
Message-ID: <af3e632f-d43e-c198-f7f9-88abc14f1643@petit-huguenin.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 09:41:50 -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: <fe318be6-3f55-3cd7-2507-4e5e68b0de02@petit-huguenin.org>
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/ot4mONXByZ6i8DW9eO1c05PlZSg>
Subject: Re: [stir] Proposal for update of erratum #6519 - ppt syntax
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 16:41:58 -0000

I have to ask:  What, in your implementation of STIR, made you so confident that what you propose is better than what Roman (I assume also a SIP implementer) and I (a 5 times SIP implementer and one time STIR implementer) propose?

On 4/23/21 9:34 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
> On 4/23/21 9:27 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> With quoted string we wouldn't need such text.
> 
> You would need an even longer text that explains that a quoted-string that contains characters that are not in the definition of token -- excepted for the initial quote and the last quote -- is invalid.  You would also need to explain that, contrary to the rule for a quoted-string, the string is case-insensitive.  And you still have to explain that the string needs to be normalized before copy in the JSON document.
> 
> So many words.
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
>> Sent: torstai 22. huhtikuuta 2021 21.07
>> To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>om>; Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
>> Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>om>; IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [stir] Proposal for update of erratum #6519 - ppt syntax
>>
>> On 4/22/21 11:02 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Another thing. Since we are now using DQUOTE, won't those become part of the ppt value? I guess we don't want that.
>>
>> The text I proposed is taking care of that:
>>
>> ...a quoted value whose unquoted part is equivalent to the token in the "ppt" parameter, normalized to contain only lowercase characters...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 9:00 PM
>>> To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
>>> Cc: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>rg>; Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>om>; IETF STIR Mail List <stir@ietf.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [stir] Proposal for update of erratum #6519 - ppt syntax
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 1:54 PM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>>> Doesn't the SIP ABNF allow spaces (LWS) between the different "syntax parts", DQUOTE and token in this case?
>>>
>>> I do not think so. At least all other elements like LQUOT and DQUOT explicitly define where LWS is allowed.
>>> _____________
>>> Roman Shpount
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


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