Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 11 November 2015 22:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FD61B2BE4; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:47:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 f6w9TZ1WYfU6; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:47:03 -0800 (PST)
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 9DF3F1B2BE3; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 14:47:03 -0800 (PST)
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 tABMl2qf011493 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:47:02 -0600 (CST) (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: "Peter Saint-Andre" <peter@andyet.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 16:47:01 -0600
Message-ID: <52B1BBA3-7234-4705-B4F1-B26466068A18@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <563B81EE.2020401@andyet.net>
References: <CC605F0B-9B8E-4FE0-9DEC-79A3E1162ED5@nostrum.com> <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <5609F44F.4020702@andyet.net> <802DAAC4-1DA2-4787-8121-8DB29D4B4B80@nostrum.com> <563B81EE.2020401@andyet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.3r5164)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/QSJ1crdiwTViIqVvcz4o1hNVS5A>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-7248bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-stox-7248bis-05
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <stox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/stox/>
List-Post: <mailto:stox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 22:47:05 -0000

On 5 Nov 2015, at 10:21, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Hi Ben & all,
>
> My apologies for the delayed replies. I haven't forgotten about this 
> work but I'm only able to make slow progress right now.

Understood, no problem.

>
> On 9/28/15 9:16 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> On 28 Sep 2015, at 21:15, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>
>>> Proposed text inline.
>>>
>>> On 9/23/15 8:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 9/21/15 9:25 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
>>>>> -- Example 4:
>>>>>
>>>>> The Request-URI should match the Contact header field value from 
>>>>> the
>>>>> SUBSCRIBE. (Technically, from the last message from the peer, but
>>>>> assuming you don't have them change contacts mid-stream, it's the
>>>>> same.)
>>>>> You also might want to consider whether the aforementioned contact
>>>>> values are useful examples. (Repeats in later examples)
>>>>
>>>> Noted.
>>>
>>> Is your suggestion that we not include the Contact headers, or only
>>> that we look carefully at the values of those headers?
>>
>> The second. The contact identifies (and routes to) the device that 
>> sent
>> the containing message. And with RFC 6665, the contact sent by the
>> notifier MUST contain a GRUU (RFC 5627).
>>
>> For example:
>>
>>    Contact: <sip:juliet@example.com;gr=hdg7777ad7aflzig8sf7>
>>
>>
>> It wouldn't hurt for the subscriber to also contain one, albeit the 
>> gruu
>> value should be unique per device.
>
> I'm still confused about this. The examples in RFC 3856 aren't 
> consistent with what you've written above. For example:
>
> F1 SUBSCRIBE   watcher->example.com server
>
>    SUBSCRIBE sip:resource@example.com SIP/2.0
>    Via: SIP/2.0/TCP watcherhost.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
>    To: <sip:resource@example.com>
>    From: <sip:user@example.com>;tag=xfg9
>    Call-ID: 2010@watcherhost.example.com
>    CSeq: 17766 SUBSCRIBE
>    Max-Forwards: 70
>    Event: presence
>    Accept: application/pidf+xml
>    Contact: <sip:user@watcherhost.example.com>
>    Expires: 600
>    Content-Length: 0
>
> Then:
>
> F3 NOTIFY  example.com server-> watcher
>
>    NOTIFY sip:user@watcherhost.example.com SIP/2.0
>    Via: SIP/2.0/TCP server.example.com;branch=z9hG4bKna998sk
>    From: <sip:resource@example.com>;tag=ffd2
>    To: <sip:user@example.com>;tag=xfg9
>    Call-ID: 2010@watcherhost.example.com
>    Event: presence
>    Subscription-State: active;expires=599
>    Max-Forwards: 70
>    CSeq: 8775 NOTIFY
>    Contact: sip:server.example.com
>    Content-Type: application/pidf+xml
>    Content-Length: ...
>
> Are the examples in RFC 3856 wrong or out of date?

Out of date. The gruu requirement for SUBSCRIBE/NOTIFY was added in RFC 
6665. (Heck, gruu itself didn't exist when RFC 3856 was published.)

Thanks!

Ben.