Subject: [stir] stir-06: 4474 dependencies

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 21:15:56 -0500

My understanding is the idea is 4474bis will obsolete, not update, 4474. As such, statements like the following in Section 5.4:
      any algorithms that would appear in the Identity-Info "alg"
      parameter other than 'RS256.'  Note that per the IANA
      Considerations of RFC 4474, new algorithms can only be specified
      by Standards Action
have no standing. Specifically, who cares about what the IANA Considerations section of an obsolete RFC says. If you can justify the rule here, make it. If you cannot, do not use 4474 as a justification. It does not hold water.

Same for Section 7:
   Baseline RFC4474 defined the Identity and Identity-Info headers.
   This document deprecates the Identity-Info header, collapsing its
   grammar into the Identity header.  Note that unlike baseline RFC4474,
   the Identity header is now allowed to appear more than one time in a
   SIP request.  [EB1] The revised grammar for the Identity header is
   (following the ABNF [RFC4234] in RFC 3261 [RFC3261]):

Since no one is using 4474, are we not obsoleting it, rather than updating it? As such, this paragraph is editorial, i.e., a Note, and not normative.

Anyone disagree?

---

From: "Peterson, Jon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:00:49 +0000

The IANA registry entries in question have already been created, and even
if we obsolete RFC4474, those values and policies wont leave the registry
unless we direct the IANA to alter them. This text just talks about
headers and other values previously registered by RFC4474 which are
retained here. This sort of language isn't unusual in specifications
similar to ours.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 12/10/15, 6:15 PM, "stir on behalf of Eric Burger"
<[email-masked] on behalf of [email-masked]> wrote:

>My understanding is the idea is 4474bis will obsolete, not update, 4474.
>As such, statements like the following in Section 5.4:
>have no standing. Specifically, who cares about what the IANA
>Considerations section of an obsolete RFC says. If you can justify the
>rule here, make it. If you cannot, do not use 4474 as a justification. It
>does not hold water.
>
>Same for Section 7:
>Since no one is using 4474, are we not obsoleting it, rather than
>updating it? As such, this paragraph is editorial, i.e., a Note, and not
>normative.
>
>Anyone disagree?

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:28:29 -0500

Hmmmm. Really a question for the IANA folks.  My concern is if we say that we do something because RFC 4474 did something enough times, then people will think 4474 still means something. It won’t after we publish 4474bis.

> On Dec 15, 2015, at 1:00 PM, Peterson, Jon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:33:00 -0500

Eric:

The registries already exist, and the proposed document does not change them.

I think it is easy to avoid the dependency that you are concerned about.

Section 5.4:

     any algorithms that would appear in the Identity-Info "alg"
     parameter other than 'RS256.'  Note that the policy for adding
     algorithms to this registry requires Standards Action.

Giving some information to developers about what is changing from an earlier specification is desirable.  This can be done without causing the dependency you are concerned about.

Section 7:

  The Identity and Identity-Info headers that were previously defined
   in RFC4474 are deprecated.  This document deprecates the
   Identity-Info header, and now carries that information in the 
   Identity header.  Note that unlike the Identity header specified in
   RFC4474, the Identity header is now allowed to appear more than
   one time in a  SIP request.

   The grammar for the Identity header is (following the ABNF
   [RFC4234] in RFC 3261 [RFC3261]):

Russ

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 16:48:20 -0500

Perfect! I like it. Thanks.

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Eric:
>