[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-06
Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 26 November 2012 12:32 UTC
Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D746A21F8569 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:32:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0cW9uiY0ihF3 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:32:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from statler.isode.com (statler.isode.com [62.3.217.254]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA4C21F8564 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:32:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1353933148; d=isode.com; s=selector; i=@isode.com; bh=aQHMXZGNOi4QkUyrKPf9tEO4sP5vtQhobkPQDzW2rJA=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=PSxl4vw4ESORNJX8IBfJpryUoN4TJpkacJgD6A1tlXWwTAQQRA0+hMVkS8SxydMK7ftvt1 k1lSDmV1zjGlpA2JEfTwDsVw/caQIBJk5r0otR44JwQG3B67VT9yKsKeyKNjyG/P0JrU6E 2oh85soOhgSwoiAUm6JT+mSMdb+wH9w=;
Received: from [172.16.1.29] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by statler.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id <ULNhWwAbAmI8@statler.isode.com>; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:32:27 +0000
Message-ID: <50B36197.2090507@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:33:27 +0000
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
To: draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-06.all@tools.ietf.org, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-06
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 12:32:31 -0000
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ). Please resolve these comments along with any other comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-websocket-06 Title: The WebSocket Protocol as a Transport for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov Review Date: 26 November 2012 Summary: The document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard, with nits. Major Issues: none Minor Issues/Nits: In 5.1: if Content-Length is specified, it has to match the message size used to send the corresponding SIP request/response. I think it would help to specify that if they don't match than that is an error condition. In 5.2.2: should "wss" also be registered? In 5.2.3: this reminds me of the HTTP Forwarded header field draft (draft-ietf-appsawg-http-forwarded-10). It might be worth checking if any privacy considerations from it are applicable to this document. Also, if a Received header field is added, what should be the transport identifier be? In 5.2.4: the MAY seems wrong, this is already an extension. The whole section doesn't seem to be needed. RFC 2617 is a normative reference, IMHO, as it is used in a statement using an RFC 2119 keyword.
- [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-sipco… Alexey Melnikov