Subject: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-certs-03

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:23:42 -0600

Dean asked me to review draft-ietf-sip-certs-03 specifically to evaluate 
its use of RFC 3265. Based on my reading, its use of 3265 is correct, 
with one minor exception (which relates to terminology, not protocol 
behavior).

The document describes two event packages (certificate and credential). 
Both packages are described exclusively in the context of a credential 
server, which fields SUBSCRIBE and PUBLISH requests, and sends NOTIFY 
requests. In particular, normal user endpoints appear to be disallowed 
from receiving the SUBSCRIBE requests or responding to the NOTIFY requests.

This credential server that is described for both event packages is the 
poster-boy description of a "State Agent" as described in section 4.4.11 
of RFC 3265.

However, sections 6.12 and 7.14 of draft-ietf-sip-certs-03 both contain 
language which prohibits the use of state agents. This prohibition is 
nonsensical in the context of the proposed architectures. Both event 
packages, in fact, appear to require the use of state agents, and (by my 
reading) cannot be made to work without them. To avoid confusion 
regarding the term "State Agent," draft-ietf-sip-certs-03 should be 
revised to clarify that the credential server *is* a State Agent, and 
that State Agents are mandatory for the event packages described in the 
document.

As an unrelated nit that I noticed in reviewing draft-ietf-sip-certs-03: 
this document uses "header" in many places where "header field" would be 
correct. (RFC 3265 is guilty of this same transgression in many places, 
which probably influenced this erroneous use in draft-ietf-sip-certs-03).

/a

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip