Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-munakata-sip-privacy-guideline-03.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:28:29 -0400

Munakata-san, Schubert-san and Ohba-san,

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) 
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see 
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments 
you may receive.

Document: draft-munakata-sip-privacy-guideline-03.txt
Reviewer: David L. Black
Review Date: 3 August 2008
IETF LC End Date: 7 August 2008

Summary:

This draft is on the right track, but has open issues, described in
the review.

Comments:

The draft is in very good shape - it does a good job of explaining the
requirements for what is and is not to be done and why.  Significant
care has been taken to avoid modifying the RFCs that define the SIP
privacy features.

The first open issue is that this draft is currently intended to be
an Informational RFC - the responsible AD should recheck whether
Standards Track (Proposed Standard RFC) would be more appropriate.
The draft uses RFC 2119 upper-case requirements language (e.g., MUST,
SHOULD), only when restating requirements from other standards track
RFCs, but there appear to be a number of lower-case requirement
statements (e.g., for the SDP header lines in Section 5.2) that appear
to merit RFC 2119 language.  If the draft becomes standards track in
order to do this, the Note in Section 2 about use of RFC 2119
terminology would need to be modified appropriately.

The second open issue is in Section 5.3.3.  I think what is being
stated in this section is that privacy requirements will cause the
Replaces header and "replaces" parameter to not work in some situations,
and this loss of functionality is allowed and/or intended (i.e., it
is not the responsibility of a privacy service to ensure that these
features always work).  That should be stated explicitly, in a form
that tells implementers that having these not work because of privacy
is acceptable.

If I did not understand the section correctly, the text needs
clarification.

Nit: In Section 5.1.4:

   The recommended form of the From header for anonymity is:

   From: "Anonymous" <sip:[email-masked]>;tag=1928301774

Please state that the tag value may be changed, but that the rest
of this header form is recommended as shown.

Thanks,
--David
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (508) 293-7953             FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786
[email-masked]        Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754
----------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

---

From: Mayumi Munakata <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:32:04 +0900

Dear Mr. David Black,

Thank you for the Gen-ART review comments
on the sip-privacy-guideline draft.

See inline.

 > terminology would need to be modified appropriately.

Will wait for the AD's reply and modify the Note in Section 2
about use of RFC 2119 terminology as necessary.

 > that tells implementers that having these not work because of privacy

You are right.  Will add the text to explain that explicitly.

 > of this header form is recommended as shown.

Will add the text to state that the tag value may be changed.

Thank you very much!

Mayumi Munakata