Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review result: Has Nits
After getting over my initial reaction that was something like
"srsly!? we're going to standardize the exact opposite of 'do not
track'", I realized that this is a requirements draft for an IETF
approved WG and a chartered work item of that WG :)
0) s3.2: Is the intent to define a protocol mechanism to determine if
the two or domains are part of the same trust domain? This
requirement could be achieved by saying out-of-band bilateral
agreements are the mechanism to establish the domain.
1) s5.1: REQ1 - Did you mean to say "using SIP standard logging
format"? Is there another logging format other than SIP CLF?
2) s5.1: Should the must be MUST in the following:
All log retrieval mechanisms must adhere to
authorization and privacy protection policies
set forth by the network administrator.
3) s5.2: REQ3 seems odd to me - Isn't this kind of like a SIP thing?
I mean if SIP doesn't allow adding new headers then didn't somebody
sink your battleship? But SIP does allow you to add arbitrary headers
so I think I'm missing something as to why this is needed?
4) s5.2: REQ3 - Reads a bit awkward to me how about:
It MUST be possible to mark a SIP request or response for
logging by inserting a "log me" marker.
i.e., remove "of interest"
5) s5.2: REQ4 - Again this seems like a basic SIP thing - I mean are
there fields that SIP requires be stripped?
6) Is there a missing requirement based on the security considerations
that requires the this marker MUST be removed at the earliest
opportunity if it has been incorrectly inserted?