Subject: [sipcore] Comments on draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows-05

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:02:46 +0200

Hi,

a few days ago, I received a publication request for the following draft:

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows-05.txt

Please, find below a few minor comments on the draft.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

References use the following convention (RFC 5246 [12]). The current
recommendation is to use [RFC5246] instead. Something like this should
work in xml2rfc:

  <?rfc symrefs="yes"?>

Once you are at it, you may want to also add the following:

  <?rfc sortrefs="yes" ?>
  <?rfc subcompact="no" ?>

Add a reference for ASN.1 and X.509

Expand acronyms on their first use (e.g., UA and EKU).

Page 28. The word "Section" needs to be capitalized when referring to
particular sections (e.g., Section 6 of RFC 5280).

Page 28. Some paragraphs contain pointers to the relevant normative
behavior as defined in other RFCs. However, some paragraphs do not
have those pointers. For example:

  Some SIP clients incorrectly only do SSLv3 and do not support TLS.

  Many SIP clients were found to accept expired certificates with no
  warning or error.

In the next paragraph, add a reference to Section 3.2 of RFC 5621:

   Some implementations used binary MIME encodings while others used
   base64.  It is advisable that implementations send only binary and
   are prepared to receive either.

---

From: Brian Hibbard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:47:38 -0600

Gonzalo,

Thank you for your review.  I made these revisions to the newly submitted version draft-ietf-sipcore-sec-flows-06 to address the points you made:

References are now generated with symrefs="yes", sortrefs="yes", subcompact="no". 

References to ASN.1 (ITU X.683) and ITU X.509 are added.

Acronyms expanded on first use:  EKU, UA, and CPIM.

"Section" was capitalized in each case when used in a reference.

A pointer to Section 26.2.1 of RFC 3261 was added for text on page 28, "Some SIP clients incorrectly only do SSLv3 and do not support TLS."  

A pointer to Section 4.1.2.5 of RFC 5280 was added for text on page 28, "Many SIP clients were found to accept expired certificates with no warning or error."

Reference to Section 3.2 of RFC 5621 for text on page 28, "Some implementations used binary encodings…"

Thanks,
Brian

On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:09:13 +0200

Hi Brian,

thanks for your quick response. I have just requested the IETF LC for
this draft.

Cheers,

Gonzalo