[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-08 Changes
OK for me too.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sparks [mailto:rjsparks at nostrum.com]
> Sent: 12 August 2009 21:15
> To: Dean Willis
> Cc: Elwell, John; sip at ietf.org; BONNAERENS Ben
> Subject: Re: [Sip] draft-ietf-sip-record-route-fix-08 Changes
>
> I skipped straight to the end (will come back and read how you got
> there later).
> But yes, I think the rewrite you have at the end says the the same
> thing.
>
> RjS
> On Aug 12, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
>
> >
> > On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> >
> >> John -
> >>
> >> Would this substitution address your concern?
> >>
> >> When TLS is used on the transport on either side of the proxy
> >> the URI
> >> chosen to place in the Record-Route header field value
> >> reflecting the
> >> interface using TLS will need to use a sips: URI or
> ensure that
> >> a sip:
> >> URI resolves (per the procedures of [RFC3263]) to using
> TLS rather
> >> than attempting to use the deprecated "transport=tls" URI
> >> parameter.
> >> See [RFC3261] Section 26.2.2 and [I-D.ietf-sip-sips]
> Section 3.1.4
> >> for more discussion
> >>
> >
> >
> > That makes my head hurt!
> >
> > Compound sentences should make sense even with clauses redacted.
> >
> > Let's play some games with this mind twister:
> >
> >
> > First I'll try to scope the sub-clauses:
> >
> >> (When TLS is used (on the transport (on either side of the
> proxy)))
> >> the URI (chosen to place (in the Record-Route header field value
> >> (reflecting the interface using TLS))) will need to use a
> sips: URI
> >> or ensure that a sip: URI resolves (per the procedures of
> >> [RFC3263]) to using TLS (rather than attempting to use the
> >> deprecated "transport=tls" URI parameter).
> >>
> >
> > One reduction to see if it makes sense:
> >
> >> When TLS is used the URI chosen to place in the
> Record-Route header
> >> field value will need to use a sips: URI or ensure that a
> sip: URI
> >> resolves (per the procedures of [RFC3263]) to using TLS
> rather than
> >> attempting to use the deprecated "transport=tls" URI parameter.
> >
> >
> > Let's pull some smaller pieces out of this:
> >
> >> When TLS is used the URI chosen to place in the
> Record-Route header
> >> field value will need to use a sips: URI.
> >
> >
> > "chosen to place" is clumsy. Let's substitute "placed", add
> a comma
> > for the subordination, and see if it gets better.
> >
> >> When TLS is used, the URI placed in the Record-Route header field
> >> value will need to use a sips: URI.
> >
> > What does it mean for a URI to use a URI? I think perhaps it needs
> > to BE a SIPS URI.
> >
> > Rewritten:
> >
> >> When TLS is used, the URI placed in the Record-Route header field
> >> value will need to be a sips: URI.
> >
> > Now lets look at the other half of that clause:
> >
> >> When TLS is used, the URI placed in the Record-Route header field
> >> value will need to ensure that a sip: URI resolves (per the
> >> procedures of [RFC3263]) to using TLS rather than
> attempting to use
> >> the deprecated "transport=tls" URI parameter.
> >
> >
> > How does a URI ensure that a ensure something about a URI?
> >
> > Maybe you mean:
> >
> >> When TLS is used, the URI placed in the Record-Route header field
> >> value MUST resolve (per the procedures of [RFC3263]) to using TLS
> >> rather than attempting to use the deprecated "transport=tls" URI
> >> parameter.
> >
> >
> > I'm still stumbling over "resolve to using TLS rather than
> > attempting to use the deprecated "transport=tls" URI
> parameter." So
> > let's just lop off the sentence from "rather than . . ." and move
> > that out.
> >
> > What's wrong with
> >
> >> When TLS is used, the URI placed in the Record-Route header field
> >> value MUST resolve (per the procedures of [RFC3263]) to using TLS .
> >
> > Is "resolve to using TLS" the same thing as "resolve using TLS"? I
> > think they're subtly different, but the complexity still
> scares me.
> > I think we're trying to say that the application of RFC 3263
> > procedures to the URI must result in a next-hop that is reachable
> > only by TLS.
> >
> > So let's try a rewrite based on these assumptions. How about this:
> >
> >> When TLS is used, 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 RFC 3263 resolution procedures
> >> to that URI produces a result reachable only using TLS. 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.
> >
> > Does that mean the same thing to you as the original
> megasentence did?
> >
> > --
> > Dean
> >
> >
> >
>
>