Re: draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-08 Changes

On Aug 13, 2009, at 6:46 AM, BONNAERENS Ben wrote:

> Hello Dean,
>
> Sorry to make your head hurt ;-)
>
> To me the -09 sentence was clear but I do think you have a point on  
> the
> compound sentences.
>
> Still I would like to comment on the "only" in following sentence of  
> the
> text you proposed:
> "The second is for the URI placed in the Record-Route to be  
> constructed
> such that application of  RFC
> 3263 resolution procedures to that URI produces a result reachable  
> only
> using TLS."
>
> Why should that URI _only_ be reachable via TLS?
> The DNS for that URI can be populated with NAPTR records
> for multiple transports with TLS as preferred I assume.
>


Dunno WHY it should say that; that's what I thought I read in the  
compound sentence I was trying to straighten out.

Hmm. Could it be that since SIPS (draft-ietf-siip-sips) requires e2e  
TLS even more strongly than did 3261 for original sips URIs. So if a  
URI used in a record-route resolves both TLS and non-TLS, there's a  
possibility that the return stroke might not use TLS, thereby breaking  
the e2e TLS requirement. But your proposed wording change seems to  
have the same effect.


> I would also replace "sips: URI" by "SIPS URI" to be consistent across
> the document.
>

That makes sense; I  responded in the wording I thought Robert had  
used. But consistency with the document would be preferred.  Your  
usage is also consistent with draft-ietf-sip-sips.

> Resulting in following updated text:
> "When TLS is used on the transport on either side of the proxy,
> the URI placed in the Record-Route header field  MUST encode
> a next-hop that will be reached using TLS. There are two
> ways for this to work. The first way is for the URI placed in the
> Record-Route to be a SIPS URI.The second is for the URI placed in
> the Record-Route to be constructed such that application of
> [RFC3263] resolution procedures to that URI results in TLS being
> selected.
> Proxies compliant with this specification MUST NOT use a  
> "transport=tls"
>
> parameter on the URI placed in the Record-Route because the
> "transport=tls" usage was deprecated by RFC 3261."
>
> Can we agree on this text?


Looks OK to me.

--
Dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email protected] for questions on current sip
Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip