[apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Wed, 29 May 2013 03:48 UTC
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 0D52A21F8EFC; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 zp7hTZcPLBN3; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840F021F8EF7; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ergon.local (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A87D4115C; Tue, 28 May 2013 22:01:38 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <51A57AA3.6000403@stpeter.im>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:48:51 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui.all@tools.ietf.org
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10
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: Wed, 29 May 2013 03:48:57 -0000
Greetings! I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate [1] reviewer for draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you might receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the Internet-Draft. Document: draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10 Title: A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control Information in SIP Reviewer: Peter Saint-Andre Review Date: 2013-05-28 IETF Last Call ends: 2013-05-29 Summary: The document is ready for advancement to Proposed Standard but could do with a bit more polishing. Major Issues: None. Minor Issues: Section 3 states: For redirection and referral use cases and REQ-3, the header field shall be included (escaped) into the Contact or Refer-To URI. No guidelines are provided for deciding between use of the Contact header field or the Refer-To header field. Might that introduce the possibility of interoperability problems? Also, a normative reference to RFC 3515 seems needed here. In Section 4.1, has the ABNF been checked? Section 4.2 states: Each octet of binary data to be represented in the hex encoding MUST be mapped to two hexadecimal digits (represented by ASCII characters 0-9, A-F and a-f), each representing four bits within the octet. Is the output case-insensitive? Also, in Section 4.2: Hex encoding is normally done as a token, although quoted-string is permitted, in which case the quotes MUST be ignored. The phrase "done as" is a bit loose; I assume you mean something like "The hex-encoded value is normally represented using the 'token' construction from RFC 3261, although the 'quoted-string' construction is permitted..." In Section 5, what is the rationale for using a policy of "RFC Required" rather than, say, "Specification Required"? Were the various RFC 5226 options considered by the CUSS WG? Please note that Section 5 states: UUI packages defined using this SIP UUI mechanism MUST follow the "RFC Required" guideline as defined in [RFC5226] and publish a standards track RFC which describes the usage. However, Section 6.3 states: This specification establishes the uui-packages sub-registry under http://www.iana.org/assignments/sip-parameters. New uui-packages MUST follow the "Specification Required" guideline as defined in [RFC5226]. Are those two statements in conflict? In Section 5, condition #5 states: 5. The UUI data is not being utilized for user-to-user Remote Procedure Call (RPC) calls. Is it possible to use the UUI header field for RPC calls, or in general as a kind of back channel? If so, it would be good to discuss that in the Security Considerations Nits: It would be helpful to reference 4244bis on first mention of History-Info. Also, isn't it properly "the History-Info header field"? What is "hi-targeted-to-uri"? If that is a specification, a citation would be helpful. The following text would be better placed in the Terminology section (or, at the least, before the first example that uses this convention, not after the second example): Note that the <allOneLine> tag convention from SIP Torture Test Messages [RFC4475] is used to show that there are no line breaks in the actual message syntax. Peter [1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate
- [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-cuss-… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-c… Alan Johnston
- Re: [apps-discuss] AppsDir review of draft-ietf-c… Gonzalo Camarillo