[XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-19
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 14 September 2010 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: xcon@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xcon@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A8C43A683A for <xcon@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:59:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.453
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.453 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.147, BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3hL7Ds-fHK8G for <xcon@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066E93A682D for <xcon@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:59:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.105] (pool-173-71-48-4.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.71.48.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8EFxw0J009778 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <xcon@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:59:58 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 10:59:58 -0500
Message-Id: <326FB158-5C3C-48FC-96C6-252ABE05A10B@nostrum.com>
To: xcon@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 173.71.48.4 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Subject: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-19
X-BeenThere: xcon@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Centralized Conferencing <xcon.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xcon>
List-Post: <mailto:xcon@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xcon>, <mailto:xcon-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:59:36 -0000
Summary: There are a few issues to address. A revised ID will be needed before progressing to IETF Last Call. Administrative: * If this hasn't been done already, the shepherd needs to request URI review for xcon: and xcon-userid: (uri-review@ietf.org) * Who verified the schema and examples, and what tool was used? Who verified that the alternate representations of the schema in Appendix A and B represent the same thing as the schema in section 5 (and how)? I'd like to include this in the "Document Quality" section of the writeup. Technical: * Why does the xcon: URI allow [ ":" port ] ? * The document often says <foo> is defined in RFC4575, where I think it's trying to say <foo> is identical to the element with the same name defined in RFC4575. This leads to awkward constructs like those in section 4.6.5.10 where it says "The <endpoint> element is defined in RFC4575." and "The <endpoint> element in this document does not defined (sic) the 'state' attribute...". It would be better to say The <endpoint> element is identical to the element with the same name in RFC4575 except that the 'state' attribute is not included... * In 3.3.2,(definition of XCON-URI) why is the normalization of identifiers SHOULD and not MUST? Similarly, why is this normalization SHOULD in 4.6.5 (XCON-USERID)? * In 4.2 should the "should" in "should have an extra attribute 'lang'" be SHOULD (or perhaps MUST?). What makes this attribute "extra"? * It's not clear that the <user> elements <roles> element can contain more than one <entry>. The text in 4.6.5.4 can be read to say there can be only one. * Is it clear that when a conference is set up with a constraint like <mixing-start-offset required-participant="participant"> will require someone with a role of "participant" to join before mixing will start? Specifically, someone joining with a role of "moderator" that does not also have the role "participant" will not trigger the start of mixing. * 4.2.9 : <request-user> is obliquely described. This should be a definition. Perhaps replace "It is possible to defines" with "defines"? * 4.2.9, definition of <request-user>: Is the phrase "when the system has to send a notification" intended to normatively require the system to send a notification? Should "has to" be replaced with MUST? If not, "has to" is probably the wrong thing to say. * 4.2.9, <allowed-extended-mixing-end-offset>'s description is not clear. Should this say "indicates that the conference may be extended"? If so, the text should probably mention who can extend the conference and how (or contain a pointer to existing text that says those things). * 4.2.10, It is not clear from this text that the <conference-password> element is a child of <entry>, which is a child of <conf-uris>. The text implies it is a child of <conf-uris>. Should the definition of <conference-password> be pulled into its own section? The schema allows it to occur in places other than <conf-uris> - what text prevents it from occurring in, say, <associated-aors> or any of the other places that uses "uris-type"? * 4.2.11, What is the sentence "Future extensions to this schema may define new values and register them with IANA." trying to accomplish? By new values, does it mean new <purpose> values? I suggest deleting this sentence. * 4.2.13 This text: "The <mute> element is used in conjunction with an audio stream to cease transmission of associated media. That means that for the entire duration where mute is applicable, all current and future participants of the conference are muted and will not receive any audio." seems to be the only place the semantics of <mute> are defined - have I missed a description somewhere else? I think the second sentence above should say "any audio from the associated stream". * 4.4.1, Where the text says "would be rejected", should it be saying "MUST be rejected"? * 4.5.1, This section is not clear. <conference-ID> as defined in this document allows only a xsd:unsignedLong. What is it trying to say when it says it can be represented by an XCON-URI? * 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 : if the same user appears in an <allowed-users-list> and in a <deny-users-list>, which takes precedence? This should be made clear here, and the issue raised in the security considerations section. * 4.6.5.3 : What determines "equal or lesser permissions"? Is that a matter of local policy at a given server? If so, that should be called out. * 4.6.5.7 through 9 : Are these sections relying on base 3515 behavior to normatively define what the focus will do with REFERs it accepts based on the admission policies being set here? If so, please say so and provide a reference to 3515. (If not, point to where the behavior is defined). Either way, the security considerations section needs to call out the dangers of accepting a REFER, pointing into 3515's security considerations section. Among other things, what happens if I REFER the conference to itself? * In the Schama in section 5, there are several comment blocks instructing someone to redefine something as <empty/> or <notAllowed> (no trailing slash?). Is this an established convention documented somewhere? If so, can you provide a pointer? If not, please add text explaining who the instructions are intended for and when they should be invoked. * The security considerations section is very short. I would have expected at least some discussion specific to the protection of new elements such as conference-password. I also think some discussion on leaking information through cloning existing conferences is warranted. Who can clone an existing conference? Will they get the members of every sidebar every time? What happens if an eavesdropper (or malicious user) replays a cloning create request? If the existing conference had dial-out users, will the clone immediately call them? * I don't understand what the first paragraph of 8.1 is trying to say. Can it be rephrased? * The second paragraph of 8.2 is not at all clear. This should clearly state what the problem is, and provide more detail on the proposed way to avoid the problem. It's not clear at all what this mapping database is, what it means to protect its integrity, who's responsible for maintaining it, or what to do when a conflict occurs, particularly if the confict is caused by an attempted access by a malicious user. * The instructions in 9.1 about where the schema starts and ends do not match what the schema section contains. Editorial: * s/guideline that can be used/guideline/g * 4.2.9 : "possibility to defined different policies". defined->define * 4.2.9 : in the section on mixing-end-offset: "child element that specifies" -> "child element specifies" * 4.2.10 : "<conf-uris> contains" -> "<conf-uris> element contains" * 4.3 <host-info> is not a required element, but 4.3 says it "is set before conference activation". (That language is copied from 4575). Should it say "is usually set"? * 4.5.2, second paragraph first sentence. This one doesn't parse for me. It would if you added a word "There are two methods with which", but I don't know if that preserves the intended meaning. * 4.5.4 (and this occurs elsewhere in the document): "The <conference-floor-policy> element has one or more <floor> child elements. Every <floor> child elements has an attribute 'id' that uniquely identifies a floor or floors within a conference. " Doesn't parse - should it say The <conference-floor-policy> element has one or more <floor> child elements. Every <floor> child element has an attribute 'id' which uniquely identifies a floor within a conference. ? If so, what do you think led to the odd construct that's there now? * 4.6.5.10 : "does not defined the 'state'"-> "does not define the 'state'" (But this may be moot if the section is rewritten per my comment above) * 4.6.5.10: the section says <floor> is the only <endpoint> element not defined as in 4575, but then immediately says <to-mixer> and <from-mixer> are also defined in this document. * Deep in section 7 (on page 50) there is <uri>conf223></uri> I suspect that's supposed to be an XCON-URI of some sort? Similary, there are many occurances of <user entity="bob534"/> and other similarly formed values for entity that are supposed to be XCON-USERIDs. * At the end of section 7, there's a paragraph talking about using two backslashes to break lines to meet the 72 character max-line-length limit for RFCs. This convention does not appear to be used in the document (it contains no backslashes at all). I suggest deleting the paragraph. * In the security considerations section: "The Conference Information Data Model contains sensitive data which should not be analyzed or given to anyone." This should be rephrased. * 9.3 "URI Schemes register." -> "URI Schemes registry."
- [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-mod… Robert Sparks
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Oscar Novo
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Robert Sparks
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Oscar Novo
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Robert Sparks
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Oscar Novo
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Robert Sparks
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Oscar Novo
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Oscar Novo
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Robert Sparks
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Oscar Novo
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Robert Sparks
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Oscar Novo
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Robert Sparks
- Re: [XCON] AD review: draft-ietf-xcon-common-data… Oscar Novo