IETF Logo Mail Archive

[straw] AD review of draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Fri, 11 April 2014 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
X-Original-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: straw@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC7F1A0729 for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:44:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 AgKHc7EqeZq6 for <straw@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com (mail-ob0-f180.google.com [209.85.214.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 366391A0706 for <straw@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wn1so6430058obc.11 for <straw@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=spKrzOmetwvvqEzSkIp6LS2UPgf+qxluERzYdVxWGag=; b=gke9R/xczXduGX8Nob8U8HkmjWW+RUeaAQfim6jxcCUM3pAqRPOB2FYDZ/M7ICjS5m BfrDoHo8LLOq4Tlb8hxFEUHeCgcx1pyC+vjl+7tMs4ukC9hI+xDic0t4zuxO91JuyxE5 Z85+yEp7NmTtPtMCMAwn8uL7EWyhjpbvpp7ep0As1uGokdoeK7W0yi3/RBZ2XqfEZ70y wWDieusl5mx84/NzXzpAlpQjsXxvIteXnJcxrFZ3Jom4iMPzCMEtOZ/fojojAHSsCq79 u2Y+wDETwy1bl6ORzLNXIUJ1Y/XV/TGhJT1QkQ+CXtK7+BssG6ivhrMV+EK44VS4ZTsS JMKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn2R7qBTw1MRrClmVXiBFOaqsr8CPCp1D/NEmKxBlPQav+WnFPkRZzPfmOPpWYAe964XRl0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.248.131 with SMTP id ym3mr2928935obc.58.1397238270665; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.136.231 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Apr 2014 10:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:44:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgSpyo=DfRgxsN-L7Xdinn-NoPm=ddQA7EanEbrJ9Opnfw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
To: draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute@tools.ietf.org, straw@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c20a04ca442904f6c7e2c1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/straw/Iojq0-WnEmKzdYb24Mh0QINCpC0
Subject: [straw] AD review of draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02
X-BeenThere: straw@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Sip Traversal Required for Applications to Work \(STRAW\) working group discussion list" <straw.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/>
List-Post: <mailto:straw@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/straw>, <mailto:straw-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:44:33 -0000

I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF LC.  It is clearly
written, but I have one technical concerns that I would like to address
before IETF LC.

I'm concerned that, as described, the mechanism will lead to confusion by
UAs.  How does a UA that initiates a loopback call know if it got the real
endpoint or just some intermediate B2BUA that happened to be the last one
to handle the INVITE?  Even if there is some indicator, it seems better to
have the B2BUAs only respond if there's some consent flag (e.g. Supported:
middlebox-answer).  Otherwise, you're requiring every existing UA to check
that it actually got all the way through.

Thanks,
--Richard

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email