[apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-25.txt
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sat, 16 April 2011 17:29 UTC
Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D296E073C for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mA4XIq+XcPEJ for <apps-discuss@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f182.google.com (mail-px0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 367C3E0735 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi20 with SMTP id 20so2432981pxi.27 for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.48.38 with SMTP id i6mr3994319pbn.515.1302974952442; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.60.193 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [216.113.203.64]
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:29:12 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikd6=Bo4db3N4x9TFKKoKPUWOGMig@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, esg@ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, alan.b.johnston@gmail.com, Oscar.Novo@ericsson.com, Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com, Dave.Morgan@fmr.com, jari.urpalainen@nokia.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Subject: [apps-discuss] Apps-team review of draft-ietf-xcon-common-data-model-25.txt
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: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:29:15 -0000
I have been selected as the Applications Area Review Team reviewer for this draft (for background on apps-review, please see http://www.apps.ietf.org/content/applications-area-review-team). I'm not a strong enough SIP expert to express an opinion as to whether this is ready for publication in the sense of it being a useful and problem-free extension of the SIP standards framework. However, it seems a reasonable specification of a reasonable XML language extension and I didn't see anything obviously broken at the SIP level; there are a few nits, noted below, that should be addressed: Observation: Element names given in double quotes, attribute names in single quotes. Odd. Is this a convention? General issue: There is much discussion of the values of various elements. There seems little discussion of whether exact case matching is required, whether white-space on either side of the designated values is allowed, and so on. Is this obvious from the context of the other SIP RFCs? It would trouble me as an implementor. There are a couple of nits below where I've called this out. Apology in advance: There are quite likely things I've called out that would be obvious to a seasoned SIP implementor who is after all the target of this draft; pardon the irritation. Nits: 1. 3rd para "specifies by whom, and in which way that information" - needs comma after 'way' 3.4 "defined in the data model" is unclear. You mean "the data model in this specification" I think? But I'm not sure. 4.1 " A conference object document begins with the root element tag <conference-info>" - the word 'tag' is superfluous here, not part of the idiom used elsewhere in this document 4.2 <conference-description> takes a "lang" attribute. Is this free text, ISO 639, or takes its definition from elsewhere in the SIP suite? Shouldn't something be said? 4.2.6 "The <allow-sidebars> element represents a boolean value. If set to TRUE" Does this mean the content of the element must be the string TRUE? Case-sensitive? White-space before and after allowed? 4.2.9 2nd bullet - 'This attribute contains one of the following values: "none", "administrator", "moderator", "user", "observer", and "participant". ' Is it obvious to a reader whether exact-matching is required or case-mixing is allowed? Is white space allowed? Apologies if this is defined elsewhere and I missed it. 4.2.9 2nd bullet - " The roles semantic" - missing apostrophe after "roles". Also grammatically awkward, maybe "The roles' semantic definitions are.." 4.2.9 3rd bullet - "The <mixing-end-offset> child element specifies the time a conference media mixing stops" - superfluous "a" after "time" 4.2.13 4th bullet - missing comma after "values" 4.4.1 "The <allow-conference-event-subscription> element represents a boolean action. " - should 'action' be 'value'? (this idiom also appears several more times in the draft) 4.5 " Other elements from different namespaces MAY be present for the purposes of extensibility." I was a bit surprised to encounter this for the first time here; does such extensibility not apply to all the elements defined previously? If it's generally true, maybe move it up to an introductory section? If child namespaces are generally disallowed and this is an exception, that also deserves saying at the top of the document. Section 6 suggests that extensibility is generally allowed for elements in this language, in which case the statement here is superfluous? 4.6.2 ""closedAuthenticated": A 'closedAuthenticated' policy MUST have each conference participant in the allowed users list (listed under the <allowed-users-list> XML element" - 'XML' is superfluous, appears a couple of times in this section 4.6.5 "4.6.5. <user> and Its <user> Sub-elements" - title looks funny, is the second <user> superfluous? 8. "Futhermore, users may use different namespaces to access to a conference as explained in Section 4.6.5." I revisited 4.6.5 and it doesn't contain the word "namespace", it discusses user identifiers. Should "namespace" be replaced by "identifier" in this paragraph? Also "Futhermore" is misspelled.