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

Peter Saint-Andre <peter@andyet.net> Thu, 05 November 2015 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 45A481B2FF8 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:21:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 PTL806pCi2dx for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x232.google.com (mail-io0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::232]) (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 837951B2FF3 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2015 08:21:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ioc74 with SMTP id 74so29414812ioc.2 for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:21:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=andyet_net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2RswCek/p7/NU8rvohnoKBR7M5G4Kq9YXD8GYOEukns=; b=LwvdGvs7zPHK6+7tdA0KO8PvBqIe/EKCYXFFlDFdiuNVHMZ/OX7EAX7SpQFqNgtgrL Kp3VnS/pqPGMevCE//3clTDRCzNL8I+PO3zSdHDK8KA0vvFSPz6sV7KLggu6ilHOwAj/ oeepe0wDrkq7BzWKzsFyjfq4MbHfO2eUT3gaIGK1lDiUOLEH+Tpaw7Z0Se3r4UHILTjR E0W1XsEqa3ThRb9SO8SVzgJZjkwwdPqxvbk9BBjcCtPQmGhH6wwRIyRNq2D/lHLpfuTv zk0N7jHTDs5H2dUK3z5dfHsfhjW9rLwgHSMIZniNKILIioNK9/3ppHMkwtWDo6mABaYy sfYQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2RswCek/p7/NU8rvohnoKBR7M5G4Kq9YXD8GYOEukns=; b=PTIbJI+/8eg7vE/L1KNuB6tOpTKQkLowxviD1++QJ4/eEFAQJS8gwjl5mE7nMw9i+O 0oeMDjC0mP8APrVcxuYBIrX3EyXgw15ET2VbJVoy/EN8/La7NSSmGcVbFSlc8U5mV1HB Iudb5GdohiOy3EM+8fSfpI3+h62Le2gDrOzYqazwp0EFSF4tiU514Bb0z1KPgi8jMQ+V nknFpr8LcjpXCBrXUiyLMMDdd7anUla9zr1mSpBpU7CgQ8uwkyoPf97p0HPBqEiZQgZE PYgW3c0vNEUe1U73H3eMS9nHC3m8rkPL/2Yz664qqor2PnbKDHWYejEOT3xYCMVmaXKm Q1qw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm1ueQjA53OS0Ag3e6DqA9UrleuTpKk5sUPvwOto162ci3jjC1VKV1pj7fwxLUurjWEDq7C
X-Received: by 10.107.25.11 with SMTP id 11mr6134882ioz.5.1446740465779; Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:21:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local ([2601:282:4201:ef5b:b520:df08:67a7:527b]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id x1sm11411001igl.14.2015.11.05.08.21.03 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:21:04 -0800 (PST)
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <CC605F0B-9B8E-4FE0-9DEC-79A3E1162ED5@nostrum.com> <56036577.3000204@andyet.net> <5609F44F.4020702@andyet.net> <802DAAC4-1DA2-4787-8121-8DB29D4B4B80@nostrum.com>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <peter@andyet.net>
Message-ID: <563B81EE.2020401@andyet.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:21:02 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <802DAAC4-1DA2-4787-8121-8DB29D4B4B80@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/lAobfEQg4nEzifFIeYOyX_cw6co>
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: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 16:21:08 -0000

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.

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?

Peter