[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Sip] RE: [RAI] RAI review of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
(As WG chair)
Just a note that I should have included with the
WGLC.
The intention with this document is to republish on a
recurring basis, and therefore to keep it up to date (say once a year or
so).
The 1st versions is intended to include gruu, outbound and
ice, but apart from that, anything that is not published in that timeframe will
probably be removed unless there is exceptional justification for keeping it,
with the idea that it will appear in the next version.
regards
Keith
I have been assigned to review
of draft-ietf-sip-hitchhikers-guide-03
from the perspective of presence and the SIMPLE group but ended up
in
commenting on the whole document
at the end.
For background on
RAI-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/art/rai-art-FAQ.html
Please resolve these comments along
with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.
In my
opinion this draft is basically ready for publication, but has
nits that should be fixed before
publication.
Citations from the
draft are marked by <<< text from draft >>>
General comments
----------------
By its nature there are a lot of reference to drafts
in the document.
It will take a lot
of time for these documents to become and RFC.
So how we are going to publish this as an RFC? Since
when the
referenced drafts will
become an RFC, this draft would have to be
updated with new drafts, will it be held in the
RFC ED queue for ever?
How do we gauge the usage of an RFC or a draft?
There are many places
here that it
is said that this or that RFC/draft got widely implemented
or not.
How it is measured? The wide implementation test is used to
decide
whether an RFC or draft are
core or not and therefore there should be
some text explaining how the wide implementation was determined.
Better change RFC XXXX (before the
reference number in []) to the name
of the draft (with no version number), it will make the ride
smoother.
An introduction that
details the various grouping should be added. It
should include additional text on the group and what
was the criteria
for putting an
RFC/draft in the group.
2.
Scope of this Document
--------------------------
<<<
o
Any specification that defines an extension to SIP itself, where
an extension is a
mechanism that changes or updates in some way a
behavior specified in RFC
3261
>>>
"to SIP itself" sounds vague. It will
be better to say:"to RFC 3261"
instead.
Maybe there should
be an earlier definition of RFC 3261 as the SIP nucleus
(or the president of the galaxy) and that
RFCs/drafts mentioned in this
document are based on their relation to it.
<<<
Excluded from this list are requirements, architectures,
registry
definitions,
non-normative frameworks, and processes. Best Current
Practices are included when they
normatively define mechanisms for
accomplishing a task.
>>>
"normatively define" not
sure what is meant by normative with
respect to BCP. Seems like a contradiction in terms.
3. Core SIP
Specifications
---------------------------
If we think on presence as eventually replacing registration, since
it
carries much more information
about the availability of the user,
should we consider also presence as a towel?
<<<
RFC 3261, The Session Initiation Protocol (S): RFC
3261 [1] is the
core SIP protocol itself. RFC 3261 is an update to RFC 2543
[9].
It is the
president of the galaxy [42] as far as the suite of SIP
specifications is
concerned.
>>>
RFC 3261 is a very big document.
Should it be treated as one or it can
be divided into parts in this document e.g. proxy, client etc.? I am
not
sure what would be
better.
4. Public
Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) Interworking
---------------------------------------------------------
Regarding RFC 3578
Ugly in one corner of the galaxy may be beautiful on
the other of it :-)
7.
Minor Extensions
--------------------
<<<
RFC XXXX, Referring to Multiple Resources in SIP (S): RFC XXXX
[44]
allows a
UA sending a REFER to ask the recipient of the REFER to
generate multiple SIP requests,
not just one. This is useful for
conferencing, where a client would like to ask a
conference server
to eject multiple users.
>>>
Should not
this be referred to in the conferencing section also?
<<<
RFC 4483, A Mechanism for Content Indirection in Session
Initiation
Protocol
(SIP) Messages (S): RFC 4483 [89] defines a mechanism for
content indirection.
Instead of carrying an object within a SIP
body, a URL reference is
carried instead, and the recipient
dereferences the URL to obtain the object.
The specification has
potential applicability for sending large instant messages,
but
has yet to
find much actual use.
>>>
The
specification has also potential for sending large presence
documents via a URL.
<<<
RFC 4583, Session Description Protocol (SDP) Format for
Binary Floor
Control
Protocol (BFCP) Streams (S): RFC 4583 [91] defines a
mechanism in SDP to signal
floor control streams that use BFCP.
It is used for Push-To-Talk and conference floor
control.
>>>
Should not this be referred to in the
conferencing section also?
<<<
RFC XXXX, Connectivity Preconditions for Session Description
Protocol
Media Streams
(S): RFC XXXX [93] defines a usage of the precondition
framework [59]. The
connectivity precondition makes sure that the
session doesn't get established
until actual packet connectivity
is checked.
>>>
Should not
this be referred to in the QoS section also?
8. Conferencing
----------------
The Conferencing section should be before or after
"Instant Messaging,
Presence and
Multimedia" as it is also an application. See the comment
on whether presence is an application or not
later.
10. Event
Framework and Packages
----------------------------------
Suggest to divide this section to event framework
section and to
packages section.
The event framework should include 3265, 3903, 4662
and subnot-etags which define the event framework
itself.
The other section will the
packages sections that will list the
packages.
Alternatively,
many of the packages are mentioned in their proper
section so it may be that all the event packages can
be fit into
their relevant section
and there is not a need for packages section.
11. Quality of Service
-----------------------
<<<
RFC 3313, Private SIP Extensions for Media Authorization
(I): RFC
3313 [61] defines a P-header that provides a mechanism for passing
an authorization
token between SIP and a network QoS reservation
protocol like RSVP. Its
purpose is to make sure network QoS is
only granted if a client has made a SIP call
through the same
providers network. This specification is sometimes referred to
as
the SIP
walled garden specification by the truly paranoid androids
in the SIP community.
This is because it requires coupling of
signaling and the underlying IP
network.
>>>
Understand that being a
"truly paranoid" is a virtue? :-)
15. Security Mechanisms
------------------------
Should not RFC 3323 (Privacy), RFC 3325 (Asserted-ID) and RFC
4474
(Identity) be mentioned here
also?
16.
Instant Messaging, Presence and Multimedia
-----------------------------------------------
Maybe create an applications section and put also
conferencing as a type
of an
application.
Including presence
here with IM and multimedia seems that presence is
regarded as an additional type of media. I am not
sure that I agree with
this.
Presence is an enabler for many other applications and it deserves
a section of its own.
It is very tempting to include the simple-simple
content here
(as an appendix?). If
simple-simple is not to be included here, there
should be at least a reference to simple-simple as
for presence
there are so many
documents that are essential for doing presence and
are not mentioned here (e.g. watcher format, RPID,
presence rules,
partial notify and
publish and many many more). Roughly counting, there
are about 20-25 RFCs/drafts that are very relevant
to presence that are
mentioned in
simple-simple in addition to the ones that are mentioned here.
The MSRP drafts seem to be
forgotten?
Thanks
--Avshalom
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip