Subject: Re: [Sip] re: WGLC: resource priority (2)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:58:15 EST

In a message dated 1/15/2004 3:09:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

I believe that the IANA *registration* does need to have such a forward 
reference and that the IESG will tend to agree with me.

[MAP] Then it's a chicken and egg problem. I can't get the other normative 
reference through as an RFC or an internal DOD spec or an ITU-T Recommendation 
until this one is approved and we can't get this one approved until all the 
other ones it needs to reference are approved.

In a message dated 1/15/2004 3:09:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

The UA should know the policy.  There is no technical reason it can't 
know or collect the policy and then use the appropriate policy. That's 
what the session policy mechanism is for. However, there are a number 
of technical problems related to security we get when proxies start to 
insert or modify RP.

[MAP] I didn't mean that the UA could never know the "policy" and do all 
kinds of things like ensuring that the human user is complying with "policy" 
before it sends an INVITE. Certainly one can be built to do this. But it is equally 
possible to build/operate a UA that does not do these types of things - that 
is, a "dumb device" that expects the human user to know what to do and to 
react properly.

Both are possible, so lets ensure that the definition of the RP-header in 
this RFC allows both.

Mike Pierce

_______________________________________________
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

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:47:13 -0800

> other ones it needs to reference are approved.

There is no chicken and egg problem here.  The Resource-Priority header 
and setting up the IANA namespace can happen as soon as this document 
is ready to go.  Any initial namespaces that need to get registered are 
really optional--they can get registered if there is a document to 
reference.  There is no dependency here.

My understanding is that documents already exist which describe the 
behavior expected in the PSTN world for the proposed initial namespace 
registrations.  If they aren't, then at a later time someone can write 
a document explaining the normative behavior and include the IANA 
registration in the document if it is an IETF document, or write a very 
short (~2 page) companion IETF document which just performs the 
registration.

> is, a "dumb device" that expects the human user to know what to do and 

Yes, I agree it is possible to build a dumb UA.  That hurts, so don't 
do that.

> Both are possible, so lets ensure that the definition of the RP-header 

If you insist on allowing both, this work will have to wait for the 
appropriate mechanisms to secure proxy insertion (Middle to End 
security) which will take many months.  I don't think this is in your 
best interest, or the best interest of the WG or the larger community.

thanks,
-rohan