Adding the working group.
Dan - thanks for this review. I've been working towards trying to
express a concern, and this really helped clarify what was bothering me.
This document, AFAIK, _is not_ actually trying to register the
Session-ID header with IANA, even though there is a section that looks
like it does.
Rather, that registration is in
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-insipid-session-id/
That is a very good example of how just adding the explanatory paragraph
at the beginning of the document isn't enough to turn this into
something that documents an earlier path considered and implementation
that exists current deployments - the text needs to be touched in
several places to make it clear that's what the document is doing. In
the IANA considerations case, one possible adjustment is to change the
text to "here's what known implementations have used for syntax. See
[draft-ietf-insipid-session-id] for the intended registered syntax", and
not issue instructions to IANA.
It's more work for Hadriel, but I think it's necessary.
RjS
On 8/21/13 12:26 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART,
please see the FAQ at
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may
receive.
Document: draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id-03.txt
Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review Date: 8/21
IETF LC End Date: 8/30
IESG Telechat date:
Summary:
Ready with Issues
Major issues:
1. In similar situations when IETF WGs decided to document proprietary
solutions that were used as a basis for standards-track RFCs Historic RFCs were
issued rather than Informational RFCs. See for example RFC 5412, 5413, 5414
which documented the prior art that was used to create RFC 5415. Publication of
these documents was also withhold until the standards-track RFC was published.
None of these precedents is followed here. One of the reasons for the WG to
prefer Informational rather than Historic is the fact that the registration of
a new SIP header field is required from IANA, and in conformance with RFC 5727
this can be done in an Informational RFC, but not in a Historic one. What is
missing however is clear text that the solution described in this document is a
legacy solution and that the solution going forward is the one that is being
defined by the INSIPID WG. The IESG should also consider whether this document
should be approved for publication before the standards
-t
rack solution defined by the INSIPID WG is also published.
2. The Abstract makes the claim that the Standards-Track RFC that will be
eventually produced by the INSIPID WG will be developped in a
backwards-compatible manner with this document. This does not seem appropriate
here - if at all such a requirement should be included in
draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt. However it does not appear there,
and that document was recently submitted for publication to the IESG, so the WG
did not include it in its consensus.
Minor issues:
1. The IANA considerations sections need to be more explicit in demonstrating that the conditions for registration of extension SIP header fields in Informational RFCs have been met as per RFC 5727. That RFC defines that Designated Expert review needs to happen for such new registrations - I could not find a proof that such a review took place in the shepherd write-up. Actually the question about the expert reviews is not answered directly, instead of an answer wide deployment is mentioned, but that deployment could not use this SIP header field which was not yet approved. According to RFC 5727 there are two basic conditions that need to be verified by the Designated Expert - that the proposed header field must be of a purely informational nature and must not significantly change the behavior of SIP entities that support it, and that the proposed header field must not undermine SIP security in any sense, and that the Informational RFC defining the header field must address
se
curity issues in detail, as if it were a standards-track document. I believe
that both conditions are met by the I-D, but there is no adequate text in the
IANA considerations section to explain this.
Nits/editorial comments:
Regards,
Dan
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
