We did have a debate before WGLC on Info versus BCP with the AD and a few other experts, but I forgot to include reference to that in the PROTO writeup.
If I am ever in the position of doing other PROTO writeups, and the issue comes up again, I'll try to remember to include it. regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 12:44 AM > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) > Cc: Shida Schubert; [email protected]; > General Area Review Team; [email protected]; Cullen Jennings > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-07.txt > > Thanks. I have no problem with this explanation. Maybe it > will become a candidate for BCP status in a year or two. > > Brian > > On 2009-05-12 09:37, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote: > > So to summarise, my understanding is that this document > provides a way of using the protocol tools that are > normatively specified elsewhere, rather than creating the > protocol itself. As such informational would appear to be appropriate. > > > > regards > > > > Keith > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Shida Schubert [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 1:35 PM > > To: Brian E Carpenter > > Cc: [email protected]; General Area Review > > Team; [email protected]; Cullen Jennings > > Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-07.txt > > > > > > I have sent the copy of this e-mail from my personal > e-mail address, > > so sending it again from the address listed in the draft. > > I apologize if people are receiving a duplicate copy. > > > > Brian; > > > > Many thanks for your review. > > > > I have pasted relevant text from your comments and replied to them > > inline.. > > > > [Brian] > > Comments: > > --------- > > > > Apart from the small point mentioned below, I didn't find any > > technical issues with this draft, but it left me feeling a little > > uncomfortable. It isn't a standard, it isn't an experiment, > it isn't a > > description of current practice, so what is it? > > [Brian] > > > > We had a draft which clarified the use of RFC3323 (Currently in the > > AUTH48 state) along with the recommendation to use tools > that were not > > available at the time of RFC3323. WG decided to take on the portion > > which described the toolset that were recently defined to obtain > > user's privacy as a BCP, and we progressed the portion that > clarified > > the use of RFC3323 as a separate draft and submitted as an > independent > > submission. > > > > As the toolset recommended in this draft aren't widely > deployed and > > not even an RFCs, the WG agreed to change the status to > informational. > > (We really believed the referenced specifications namely > GRUU and TURN > > were to be an RFCs by the time this draft was to be published.) > > > > There are more and more implementations of GRUU observed > at interop > > test events and some in deployments and TURN are seeing > tractions as > > well, so putting this out there will ensure the use of > proper toolsets > > to obtain privacy in SIP without relying on what is defined in > > RFC3323. > > > > [Brian] > > Minor issues: > > ------------- > > > > Referring to section 5.1.2, note that in RFC5364, > "sip:[email protected]" > > is a MUST rather than a SHOULD. I don't know whether that interacts > > with the current draft in any way. > > [Brian] > > > > Sniplet from the introduction of RFC5364 -- > > > > Additionally, we provide the sender with the > > capability of indicating in the URI list that one or > more resources > > should be anonymized, so that some recipients' URIs are > not disclosed > > to the other recipients. Instead, these URIs are replaced with > > anonymous URIs. > > -- > > > > So the anonymization is for not the sender itself but for the > > recipients of the copied messages (receivers). The > UA-privacy is about > > obtaining the privacy of the sender thus there is no > interaction that > > we have to worry about between this draft and RFC5364. But > thanks for > > bringing this up anyhow. > > > > As for the reference I will update the reference and > resubmit the version 08 of the draft. > > > > Many Thanks > > Regards > > Shida > > > > > > On 5-May-09, at 11:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > > <draft-ietf-sip-ua-privacy-07-carpenter.txt> > > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
