Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-04
Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com> Thu, 08 August 2013 23:17 UTC
Return-Path: <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4431111E8161; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.386
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ap5WHpsOtx2e; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x232.google.com (mail-qc0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25CA821F9A51; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f178.google.com with SMTP id s1so1885177qcw.37 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ahXsmnH3sC/CZJzm4r1ciE0v/x5wWpK+Wk+6L+y+ums=; b=jk34DDcqmH1nKJF15aGxsVHcZ2JwaBy+9V8pgAqZKki1yq05lSZwdBExTORpMr/IRN jxwuyqhtOEc0EL160Sqg09SQEtpq56dvaf/tPTVIe0Pd6wWlEnrQCz6CVw3MewtTnSA+ k5R5yzeaAHg5l0TYWulog9Mig/Yog03u/dEm5HC8sYZK3IA0Ev2+9cN5RxUZr6c2xlzQ Ov6tPZtwp9UKV80Br9RMFr2qO2K80M2qr5G+dkzX8tU0SFXa36RS7TPSlJEeVNQsNNrJ VUaOeH0wxJMoLDYgd4zMhbvO911uuCLaXXdbjUPOxAKqsgUMH6M9lRJvWgZiw1b3d8X1 mSKg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.28.9 with SMTP id x9mr8585934qeg.8.1376003809324; Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.48.36 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2BBEF519D867E04EA729626C246A978702E7A200@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1307172139332.7497@mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it> <2BBEF519D867E04EA729626C246A978702E7A200@eusaamb101.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:16:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBDyN7xLEnnLhzFjJDyiYSbZDZAjm1M25x0aM6kNjvaVGWybA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mary Barnes <mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com>
To: Glenn Parsons <glenn.parsons@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc077443b59204e377daf2"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:47:50 -0700
Cc: "draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication.all@tools.ietf.org" <draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication.all@tools.ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-04
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 23:17:06 -0000
Hi Glenn, Sorry for the delay in responding. Thanks for your careful review. Our responses are below [MB]. Mary On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Glenn Parsons <glenn.parsons@ericsson.com>wrote: > Hello all, > > I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for > this draft (for background on appsdir, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate > ). > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD > before posting a new version of the draft. > > Document: draft-yusef-dispatch-ccmp-indication-04 > > Title: Conference Focus Indicating CCMP Support > > Reviewer: Glenn Parsons > Review Date: July 19th, 2013 > > Summary: The document is needs some improvements in explanation and then > would be ready for publication. > > Major issues: > > There are 4 approaches described here. And two are standardized. The > abstract indicates that pros/cons are explained, but these only appear for > the two not chosen. The reader would benefit from understanding the > difference in choosing between the two approaches standardized. Further, > what is the recommendation for the two not chosen? Could these still be > used and they are shown as a guide? Or must they not be used? > [MB] Very good point. We did have some of this text in earlier versions and can pull that back into this version. For the Call-Info header (section 2.1), the following is the reason it was selected as a preferred solution - we can add this to the first paragraph right after the intro sentence: The use of the Call-Info header is consistent with SIP in terms of the mechanism by which a UA determines the capabilities of a SIP intermediary. It also enables the discovery of the CCMP capability by any network element that is not using the conference event package. For section 2.2, we can add text something like the following after the first sentence: Note that the definition of an additional URI 'purpose' of 'ccmp' associated with the 'confs-uris' element in the SIP conferencing event package was also considered (as discussed in A.2). However, it was decided that the use of the 'service-uris' element was a bit cleaner since clients that had no interest in CCMP wouldn't need to even bother looking at that element in the event package. As far as the two not chosen, since both require specification (i.e., IANA registrations), it wouldn't make sense for someone to use those. We included them in the appendix for completeness in case someone later asked why we didn't standardize those approaches. We can add a paragraph in the appendix reflecting this and note that the consensus of the community at the time of this specification was that the two mechanisms being standardized in this specification were more than sufficient. [/MB] > > Minor Issues: > > In the abstract: > > ...the XCON conference event package RFC 4575 [RFC4575] ... This appears > to be incorrect. Do you want to refer the RFC 6502 or 4575 here? I > suspect it is the former, and if so some mention of this in the body of the > document (like in 2.1 with XCON-URI) is needed as well as a reference. > [MB] Yep - you are correct.[/MB] > > In the Introduction: > > RFC 5238 [RFC5239] defines a... -> RFC 5239 [RFC5239] defines a... > [MB] We'll fix this. [/MB] > > In 2.1, 4.2: > Focus -> conference focus. Perhaps a reference to the definition of this > term would be helpful. > [MB] We probably should reword the first paragraph of section 2 to provide some more background, introducing the term, maybe something like the following: This section defines two mechanisms that can be used to discover whether the conference which a client has joined, per the SIP signaling procedures defined in RFC 4579, supports CCMP. Specifically, the mechanisms allow the client to know that the URI representing the conference focus, as defined in RFC 4579 and RFC 5239, is an XCON-URI as defined in RFC 6501. [/MB] > > > Nits: > > None. >
- [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-jcard… Claudio Allocchio
- [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-yusef-disp… Glenn Parsons
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-j… Philipp Kewisch
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-yusef-… Mary Barnes