[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00

Janet

Comments in-line

At 01:01 PM 10/31/2007, Janet P Gunn wrote:


I also support this, but I have some minor questions/nits.

I am assuming that the second part of the namespaces (- 000009, -00000A, -00000B, etc.) are to be interpreted as "character strings" and not as hexadecimal numbers. But at first glance they LOOK like hex numbers, so it might help future readers by pointing it out. 

from your examples above, all of
        "dsn-000009" and "dsn-00000A" and "dsn-00000B"

are singular, wholly separate and complete RPH namespaces.

The ' - ' is not a delimiter character, but is a character, as are the 0s and As and Bs.


In the first full text paragraph of section 2, it says:
"A namespace from the above list will not be considered for
   preferential treatment over another namespace unless local policy
   has configured a SIP entity processing two messages (each with
   different namespaces) as being equivalent (see section 8 of RFC 4412
   [RFC4412] for this detailed)."

I don't think this should be restricted to "a namespace from the above list". This applies to ANY namespace (whether one of the currently registered ones, one of the ones defined in this ID, or one to be standardized in the future). 

this is a fair comment, and I will change the text to mean what you state here.


And then the part that starts "The reality of this is..." would be clearer if it said something like "For the case where they have not been defined as equivalent, the reality is..." (Otherwise, a reader might think that the antecedent for "this" was "local policy has configured a SIP entity processing two messages (each with different namespaces) as being equivalent".) 

I will make this clearer


The rest of the paragraph talks about a message or call with dsn-000001.8 not having preferential treatment over a message with dsn-000010.0. I think it would be useful to state (rather than waiting for the reader to deduce) that the call associated with the dsn-000010.0 RPH cannot be preempted by, nor can it preempt, the call associated with the dsn-000001.8 namespace.

...unless local policy states this is the case (according to section 8 of RFC 4412).

I will clean this up too


The next paragraph says:
"The dash '-' character is just like any other character, and is not
   to be considered a delimiter in any official way within any
   namespace here.  This MAY change in future efforts."

This use of "MAY" does not seem to be consistent with RFC 2119, so it should probably be "may" instead of "MAY".

no, I used "MAY" here to mean that there can be an update of this document in the future changing this statement (from the ' - ' not being a delimiter, to becoming a delimiter). This MAY is to let implementors know a future RFC can change this.

But even with a small "may" it is not clear what this means. If this ID becomes an RFC, and then someone wants to register the namespace "A-B-C", what, if any impact will the statement "This may change in future efforts" have on the ability to register "A-B-C"?

For now, the ' - ' (dash character) is just a normal character, and shouldn't be considered a delimiter, unless this future document changes this rule in such a way that reverse compatibility can be addressed successfully.

Does this help?


Janet



"DOLLY, MARTIN C, ATTLABS" <mdolly at att.com>

10/31/2007 11:24 AM
To
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <drage at alcatel-lucent.com>, "IETF SIP List" <sip at ietf.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00




We support this.

-----Original Message-----
From: DRAGE, Keith (Keith) [mailto:drage at alcatel-lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:30 AM
To: IETF SIP List
Subject: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00

(As SIP WG chair)

Keeping up the pressure on you people out there doing the reviewing.

This is to announce a WGLC for

"IANA Registration of New Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Resource-Priority Header Namespaces"

Contained in

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-00
.txt

The Working group last call is for two weeks until close of business on
Wednesday 14th November 2007.

Please submit any comments to the SIP list and to the editor.

I have solicited a number of independent reviews in parallel to this,
for which some have already been provided. These will be taken into
account in the WGLC.

Regards

Keith


_______________________________________________
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


_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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



_______________________________________________
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