Hi Christer, I am OK with all your responses regards Roni > -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Holmberg [mailto:christer.holmb...@ericsson.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2011 12:20 PM > To: Roni Even; gen-...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-sipcore- > keep....@tools.ietf.org > Cc: 'IETF-Discussion list' > Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-sipcore-keep-10 > > Hi Roni, > > >Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Standard > track RFC. > > > >Major issues: > > > > > >Minor issues: > > > >1. In the document you mention that the keep alive can be negotiated > in each direction. I understand the dialog case, is this true > >for the case of registration, if yes how is it done from the > registrar. If not true maybe add some text in 4.2.2. > > Good point. It is NOT true for the case of registration, when sending > of keep-alives can only be negotiated from the registering party to the > registrar. > > I suggest adding the following text to the end of section 4.2.2: > > "NOTE: Sending of keep-alives associated with a registration can only > be negotiated in the direction from the registering SIP entity towards > the registrar." > > ----- > > >Nits/editorial comments: > > > >1. In section 4.1 in the first note "If a SIP entity has indicated > willingness to receive keep-alives from an adjacent SIP entity, > >sending of keep-alives towards the same SIP entity needs to be > separately negotiated". > > > >Who is the same SIP entity mentioned in the end of the sentence. I > assume you meant "towards the adjacent SIP entity". > > (I assume you mean "Why" instead of "Who") > > You are correct. I propose to change to: > > "towards that adjacent SIP entity", to make sure that the text is > referring to the entity that indicated willingness to send keep-alives, > and not some other adjacent SIP entity. > > ---- > > >2. In the first paragraph of 4.3 and 4.4 you use "must" should it be > "MUST" > > As far as I know it shall be "must" when referring to something defined > in another specifiction. > > ---- > > >3. In 4.3 in the third paragraph "it MUST start to send keep-alives" > change to "it MUST start sending keep-alives" > > I'll change as suggested. > > ---- > > >4. In figure 2 in the 200 OK response to Alice the VIA is missing. > > Correct. > > I'll change "Alice: UAC;keep=30" to "Via: Alice;keep=30". > > ---- > > >5. In section 7.4 third paragraph " When Alice receives the response, > she determines from her Via header > >field that P1 is willing to receive keep-alives associated with the > dialog." Should be Bob and not P1. > > Correct. > > I'll change as suggested. > > ---- > > Thanks for your comments! > > Regards, > > Christer=
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
