In your previous mail you wrote: > Comments: the comments are editorial, i.e., they enter in the kind of > things which can be handled by the RFC Editor: > - 2 page 3: according to the Introduction the REFER-recipient should > be a server, not a user agent, i.e., either I've misunderstood the > Introduction or there is a typo. First background information. In SIP most of the "endpoints" are called User Agents. When they send a request or receive a response they act as a User Agent Client; when they receive a request or send a response they act as a User Agent Server. So, the definition is technically correct. The term "server" in the introduction really means "A box in the network" and it is not connected to the term "User Agent Server". The current version of the draft assumes that these two concepts are know by the reader, but it is not obvious for readers who aren't familiar with SIP, so, we should try to clarify them. => yes, you should not lose the reader in the introduction. In general you have to introduce terms with a different meaning than the common one. > - 5 page 4: NOTIFY requests -> messages (even they are requests (cf RFC 3261) > in the common language it seems a bit strange to name them requests) In SIP a message can either be a request or response. NOTIFY is a request not a response. So, the text is technically correct. => this is the same problem: in the general meaning a notification is not a request, so a neutral term is IMHO better.
Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
