
From nobody Thu Oct 26 07:03:16 2017
Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5853413F59D for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ODsGHU415SE1 for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2DB61384F5 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-bf5ff7000000268d-78-59f1eb1f641a
Received: from ESESSHC011.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.51]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 9B.88.09869.F1BE1F95; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:03:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.84]) by ESESSHC011.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.51]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:03:11 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
CC: "peter.dawes@vodafone.com" <peter.dawes@vodafone.com>, "carunach@cisco.com" <carunach@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-08
Thread-Index: AQHTTmMoLUD8UkjJKE6Ou0BBAMTyUw==
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:03:11 +0000
Message-ID: <D617B7CB.24D8A%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.7.170905
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.20]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <43AB3166D806CE439CC5E689F6E6071E@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7sa7864+RBttnaFs0PpjGbjH//jMm i76XX5gcmD2m/N7I6rFkyU8mj74Z6xkDmKO4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mk7OPstasEyi4ubcH8wN jHOEuxg5OSQETCRmP5zD0sXIxSEkcIRRorntFzuEs5hR4uqcrUxdjBwcbAIWEt3/tEEaRAQ0 JT7eOMcMYjMLpEm8eP2XEcQWFjCT+PhuMjtEjbXEqQ/HWSBsPYmDd9czgdgsAqoSzz5eArN5 gWruL78NVs8oICbx/dQaJoiZ4hK3nsxngjhOQGLJnvPMELaoxMvH/1hBbFGgmRtOQPRKCChK XJ2+HKpXT+LG1ClsELa1xLUL/xkhbG2JZQtfM0PsFZQ4OfMJywRG0VlI1s1C0j4LSfssJO2z kLQvYGRdxShanFpcnJtuZKyXWpSZXFycn6eXl1qyiREYUwe3/Nbdwbj6teMhRgEORiUe3tqL HyOFWBPLiitzDzFKcDArifAGPwEK8aYkVlalFuXHF5XmpBYfYpTmYFES53XYdyFCSCA9sSQ1 OzW1ILUIJsvEwSnVwBjaf+d1zdktxZcfPAjQmHjhwIxHB9/8+sjhnssoEya2+4e/IKNmaEFW QE5D12yXbbdOXjKymbI21GDLqi2zPNe/DGvuWG4RWj7dc0PM1r073/u79x/VYu1eIZbftrWk buPycB5vE7YYGWbztQ/WlzZ/Y2rt81gntOPi9zft4lceRM3bejznfZYSS3FGoqEWc1FxIgDB OiJVpQIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/insipid/ttrOBeflHqEdes7DCplmotIMtq4>
Subject: [Insipid] Review of draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-08
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <insipid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/insipid/>
List-Post: <mailto:insipid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:03:15 -0000

Hi,

I have reviewed draft-ietf-insipid-logme-marking-08.txt.

Summary:
--------

In general, the draft looks good, and while my comments are mostly
editorial I think there are technical procedures that need to be clarified.


Section 3.2.:
-------------

The text is very unclear, especially regarding the scope (single request
vs dialog) of a marking.

In the beginning of the section, you should say something like:

- If the marker is included in a dialog-initiation request, the scope of
the logging applies to the lifetime of the dialog, and each request and
response.=20
- If the marker is included in a mid-dialog request, or in a response to a
mid-dialog request, the scope of the logging only applies to the request
(or the response).=20

In case of dialog wide logging, where the marker is included in the
initial INVITE, does one still have to include the marker in all
sub-sequent mid-dialog messages? The examples in section 4, and the text
in section 5.1 seem to imply so. If so, I think it should be explicitly
indicated.

The title talks about =B3stopping=B2 logging, but there are no procedures f=
or
doing that. When reading section 5.1., it seems like not including the
marker in a mid-dialog message, even if the marking has been negotiated
for the whole dialog, would stop the marking. However, when reading
section 5.1.1 it seems like not including the marker in a mid-dialog
message is an error. It needs to be explicitly clarified whether a
dialog-wide logging can be stopped or not, and how.

I suggest to place the 2nd paragraph at the end of the section. It is just
informative text.

Even though it may be obvious, I think it would be good to explicitly say
(e.g., in a Note) that, if the marker is included in a request or
response, it must be included in all re-transmissions of the
request/response. Similarly, if the marker is not included in a
request/response, it must not be included in re-transmissions of that
request/response.


Section 3.6.:
-------------

Is it a normative requirement to log the whole SIP message (I see no MUST)?

Assuming it is a requirement to log the whole SIP message, do we really
want to mandate that? Couldn=B9t it be a SHOULD, unless the operator has
configured that only specific parts are to be logged?


Section 3.7.:
-------------

The text says:

 ""Log me" marking is done per-dialog and typically begins at dialog
creation and ends when the dialog ends.=B2


This only applies to dialog scoped loggings. As indicated in section 3.2,
loggings can also be done per message.


Section 5.1.2.:
---------------

Section 5 is about error cases. Shouldn=B9t this be in a separate section?


Section 5.2.:
-------------

See comment as 5.1.2.

In addition, I think this text belongs in section 3.2. I partly suggested
such text already, but I guess it could be more explicit.


Section 7:
----------

In the table, in the Predefined Values column, I suggest to say "No (no
values are allowed)=B2.



Thanks!

Regards,

Christer






