Subject: [Insipid] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 18:12:56 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-12: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

S 3.7:
"As described
   in [RFC7989] section 6, related dialogs can occur when an endpoint
   receives a 3xx message, a REFER that directs the endpoint to a
   different peer, or an INVITE request with Replaces that also
   potentially results in communicating with a new peer."

To avoid help discourage overbroad logging, this would be better if it
normatively limited the set of what may be considered "related dialogs" to what
is listed here, rather than saying "can occur."

S 4.3:
If intermediaries are going to be authorized to insert "log me" on behalf of
UAs, was any consideration given to providing support for UAs to be able to
insert "do not log me"? I realize this is a different use case -- not where the
UA isn't adding new functionality specified in this document, but rather where
it is -- but it seems like it might be warranted if having intermediaries
insert "log me" is going to be a sanctioned practice.

Note that there could be multiple plausible semantics of "do not log me" worth
supporting: telling intermediaries not to turn on "log me" or telling the
terminating user agent not to log.

S 4.6:
"Any previously logged messages SHOULD be
   retained and not deleted."

I think this needs to say "in accordance with the limitations set out in
Section 8.4.5."