Ted,
Howdy,
A couple of things about this specification confuse me, and
I'd appreciate enlightenment from the authors. The first is that the
document spends a fair amount of time setting up the context in
which GETS or other services might use resource priority and how
this mechanism relates to the SIP resource-priority header. In
Section
4.2.3, though, the documents says:
An LS MAY add the ResourcePriority attribute when propagating routing
objects to an LS in another domain. The inclusion
of the
ResourcePriority attribute is a matter of local
administrative
policy.
Should the reader assume that this local administrative policy will
follow one of the
policy approaches discussed in Section 2? If so, should this be
stated explicitly? If
not, is the text in Section 2 appropriate?
Section 2 just provides context and a pointer for additional reading
to the casual reader. I wouldn't characterize the systems discussed
in Section 2 as "policy approaches", and the word "policy" is also
not mentioned in that section. However, the section does point the
reader to rfc-3689, which in turn discusses the term of "local
policy", thus complimenting its usage further on in this draft.
The second is that relatively sparseness of the Security
Considerations,
which at the moment read:
The document defines a new attribute for the TRIP protocol and
has no
direct security considerations applied to it. However, the
security
considerations for TRIP and its messages remain the same
and are
articulated in Section 14 of [rfc3219].
Are there no security considerations for the removal of this header
by LSes which fail
to honor the requirement that an LS "MUST propagate the
ResourcePriority attribute"?
I would say no. Taking the text in its entirety....
If received from a peer LS in another domain, an LS MUST
propagate
the ResourcePriority attribute to other LSs within its domain.
....the document conveys the need for consistent information
propagated *within* a domain. A broken implementation that fails to
propagate the information simply reduces the filter/criteria used to
select a gateway.
Are there any specific considerations (security or reliability)
that apply when the Partial
flag has been set by Location Server that does not recognize the
attribute?
Nothing beyond what is stated in rfc-3219. Keep in mind while this
draft defines a new attribute, it shares the same following
characteristics of the Communities attribute defined in rfc-3219:
Conditional Mandatory: False.
Required Flags: Not Well-Known, Independent Transitive.
Potential Flags: None.
If one determines that an additional consideration (security or
reliability) does apply when the Partial flag is set, we'll need to
update rfc-3219 as well.
cheers,
-ken
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf