Subject: RE: [Speermint] Status of draft-penno-message-flows-02

From: "Drage, Keith \(Keith\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:00:48 +0200

I did a quick look and had the following comments:

1)	The proposed deliverable is meant to be informational. Do we
need the RFC 2119 reference and associated boiler plate text.

2)	General: Use of 100 (Trying) responses. The way this is shown
this seems to be generated as an immediate response. This is meant to be
generated to prevent timeout in the sender, and I would expect things
like DHCP lookup, and registration within the location server, to occur
quicker than this, thus either obviating the need to send 100 (Trying),
or sending it after the lookup has occurred.

3)	Media flow at end of section 2: What is the "BYE" doing in this
flow?

4)	Section 3.1.2: I assume this needs a new event package that
would need to be done by the SIPPING group (RFC 3427). Have you built
this into your timescales of December 2006).

5)	Section 3.1.3: The purpose of REGISTER is to create an AoR. Do I
understand that you are creating an AoR if Alice in proxy 2, and an AoR
of Bob with proxy 1. That is how I currently read the text. If so,
doesn't that obviate the need to send the subsequent session request to
proxy 2? Not sure what SIP changes would be needed here, but I would
work on the assumption that there would be some and these need to go to
the SIP group. Timescales again.

6)	For both section 3.1.2 and section 3.1.3, are you providing one
or multiple security mechanisms. If multiple mechanisns, what are you
doing to negotiate which one gets used (the strongest), and how are you
avoiding bid-down attacks.

7)	In some cases it would be useful to identify the
dialogs/transactions involved, especially where there are multiple
different ids. Are these flows going to evolve into detailed flows? If
so RFC 4485 indicates that they should contain real examples, with
correct certificates and so on?

In regard as to whether it goes forward or not, I would not like it to
go to IESG review with inclusion of SIP extensions that have not yet
been chartered and are not well under way. I have no problem with it
forming the basis of a charter item.

Regards

Keith

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 25 July 2006 21:37
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Speermint] Status of draft-penno-message-flows-02
> 
> During the IETF 66 meeting in Montreal, Reinaldo Penno 
> presented the lastest draft that he and his co-authors 
> produced, entitled "draft-penno-message-flows-02."  As we 
> have a December, 2006, milestone on this (Dec 2006 Submit I-D 
> defining the message flows associated with the SPEERMINT 
> routing architecture) we asked the WG if this should be made 
> an official WG draft.  I do not believe we had any hums/hands 
> against doing so, but we wanted to check one final time on 
> the list.  If anyone objects to making this a WG draft, 
> please speak up before Tuesday, August 1st (a week from today).
> 
> Otherwise, a week from today, the WG will ask Reinaldo and 
> his co-authors use draft-penno-message-flows-02, 
> incorporating in feedback received in Montreal, to begin work 
> on what would then be called 
> "draft-ietf-speermint-message-flows-00."  We will then ask 
> that the authors submit this new -00 draft at least 2 weeks 
> prior to speermint Interim Meeting #1 so that participants 
> and WG list members can review it.
> 
> Thank you,
> Jason & Dave 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speermint mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint
> 

_______________________________________________
Speermint mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/speermint

---

From: "Reinaldo Penno" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:41:16 -0400

Hello Keith,

Thanks for the comments, they are welcome. I will address them in the
next revision.

I'm planning to issue a draft regarding an event package for policy
exchange in the context of Speermint for some time now. Most of the work
is already done but my day job is kept me from publishing it before the
meeting.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

> From: Drage, Keith (Keith) [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:01 AM
> To: Livingood, Jason; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Speermint] Status of draft-penno-message-flows-02
>