Thanks for your read of the document!
On Mar 3, 2009, at 6:59 AM, DRAGE, Keith (Keith) wrote:
Frequently the editor's wait until the end of the WGLC before processing the comments, so I am sure that it has not been forgotten.It does have the advantage of making sure that we do not swap and change when we get conflicting comments.regards Keith-----Original Message----- From: Brett Tate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 1:19 PM To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); SIP IETF Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-sip-info-eventsA reminder of the current WGLC on this document, which completes Wednesday. Please submit your comments as soon as possible. If you are reviewing the document, and you consider there may be a delay in your comments appearing, then please send a mail to the chairs so they can ascertain whether more time is needed.I haven't received a reply concerning my February 16 (archived on 17) email: "draft-ietf-sip-info-events-03: comments and questions". Thus I'm not sure if I will have follow-up comments based upon the reply. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sip/current/msg26621.html The following is a snapshot of my questions and comments in case the authors did not see my prior email. Thanks, Brett ---- Section 3.1 paragraph 1: Concerning "MUST advertise" and "provisional 1xx", please clarify that the "MUST advertise" is not applicable to the 100 response. Does the "MUST advertise" and "provisional 1xx" apply to all (first and subsequent within dialog) INVITE non 101-199 (intentionally indicated 199)? Concerning ACK for initial INVITE's 2xx, does the "MUST advertise" always apply? Section 3.1 paragraph 2 sentences 1 and 2: Sentence 1 indicates "session parameters" and sentence 2 indicates "dialog parameters" concerning Info Package negotiation, I'm not sure when the negotiation/renegotiation occurs. Does it follow SDP offer/answer rules or something else; if something else, what? I have the same question concerning "dialog refresh" text discussed later within the same section since incorrect interpretations might trigger deactivation. Section 4.3: When sending a 489, it indicates "MUST terminate the INVITE dialog". The "MUST terminate" seems severe even if all the negotiation race conditions are adequately addressed. The mentioned "protocol failure" reason seems contrary to the "strictly send and lenient receive" mantra. Section 5.1 Table 1: The usage of "g" seems potentially outdated or incorrectly reference since discussed within RFC 2543 instead of RFC 3261. The same applies to usage Via row concerning "(2)". Section 5.2.2: The "general-header" reference is outdated or incorrectly reference since defined within RFC 2543 instead of RFC 3261. RFC 3261 uses "Message-Header". Section 7.7 paragraph 2: The following potentially could be reworded since it is okay to return failure responses (401, 503, 500, ...) even when overlapping occurs: "in the event a UAC issues overlapping INFO requests for an Info Package, the UAS MUST NOT return an error response". Section 8: Why specifically defining and using "nil"? I'm mainly just curious of the benefit over not having defined "nil" for similar use within the Supported header.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [email protected] for questions on current sip Use [email protected] for new developments on the application of sip
