On 8/22/13 2:16 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
Actually I consciously left the IANA section as registering the header, and it
was not an oversight.
For background: I did not submit the draft as Informational originally in
version-00 - I submitted it as Historic, and was asked by the shepherding AD to
change it to Informational later, based on IESG feedback (I think; I could be
wrong about it being from IESG feedback).
Once it became Informational, we (myself, the AD, and the WG chairs) did
actually discuss whether it would register the header in IANA or not. My
understanding was that this Informational draft *would* in fact register the
new header in IANA. Technically there's nothing wrong with that, afaik, other
than I do need to get Designated Expert review as Dan correctly pointed out.
We discussed that once the WG draft-ietf-insipid-session-id is published, it
would then update IANA's entry for the header to point to the new WG RFC.
Whether the WG draft-ietf-insipid-session-id text needs to change to make that
clear or not, or change to extend the already-registered header or not, etc.,
is of course also still change-able.
If the WG draft-ietf-insipid-session-id fundamentally changes the 'Session-ID'
header from what it is in draft-kaplan-insipid-session-id, in a
non-backwards-compatible fashion, then it won't have met the agreement reached
in IETF 85 for adopting draft-jones-insipid-session-id-0 as the new WG document
solution. If we decide that's ok, then I think it actually needs to register a
new header name regardless. We know 'Session-ID' is already in-use in the
wild, and there are plenty of more strings available for header names.
As you note, and as RFC5727 allows, we _can_ register a header with an
Informational RFC, as long as it meets the two restrictions in that
document.
(And I believe this one does). I also think the IESG could be convinced
that a Historic RFC would meet those requirements, and I don't think it
was the intent to exclude them when RFC5727 was put together.
I, obviously, expected that since there _was_ a standards effort around
this concept, and an expectation that it would use the same name in a
backwards compatible way, that the standards track document would do the
registration, and there would be some relationship like the one Dan
points to in order to tie in this document.
I don't really care if we thread the registration differently, as long
as we leave a _very_ clear record of what's happening since there is
standards activity here. I don't think we have that in the current document.
But my _main_ concern is that this still reads like a PS, and I would
rather we take the time to change the language to be clear it's
documenting a current situation rather than providing instructions to
new implementers.
RjS
-hadriel
On Aug 22, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Robert Sparks <[email protected]> wrote:
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 standar
ds-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
addres
s 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
