Re: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07 -- 3001 Nits and wording improvements
"Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com> Fri, 29 October 2010 00:59 UTC
Return-Path: <dworley@avaya.com>
X-Original-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bliss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B18CE3A67D0 for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ps4DFibcS8GI for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 421803A67B1 for <bliss@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,255,1286164800"; d="scan'208";a="247107154"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2010 21:01:46 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,255,1286164800"; d="scan'208";a="534048741"
Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.22]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2010 21:01:46 -0400
Received: from DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com ([169.254.1.90]) by DC-US1HCEX3.global.avaya.com ([135.11.52.22]) with mapi; Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:01:45 -0400
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@avaya.com>
To: Shida Schubert <shida@agnada.com>, BLISS <bliss@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:59:03 -0400
Thread-Topic: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07 -- 3001 Nits and wording improvements
Thread-Index: AQHLdwTbD6e5gYiXMk68Fh0QHVqyRw==
Message-ID: <CD5674C3CD99574EBA7432465FC13C1B22022889AE@DC-US1MBEX4.global.avaya.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07 -- 3001 Nits and wording improvements
X-BeenThere: bliss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Basic Level of Interoperability for SIP Services \(BLISS\) BoF" <bliss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bliss>
List-Post: <mailto:bliss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss>, <mailto:bliss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 00:59:54 -0000
In some places, "section" is capitalized and in others it is not. I think the usual convention is to not capitalize it. In that case, the places that need changing are section 4.3, para 1 ("described in [RFC5359], Section 2.17.") and section 9.7, para 4 ("discussed in Section 11."). In Abstract, "... the usage of the the dialog event package (defined in RFC 4235) as described as ..." is probably clearer as "the usage of the the dialog event package (defined in RFC 4235) that is described as ...". In section 3, item "CC request" needs to be updated due to the lack of call correlation: CC request: the entry in the callee's monitor queue representing the the caller's request for CC processing, that is, the caller's call-completion subscription. In section 3, item "Retain option", the final full-stop is missing. In section 4.1, para 3, at the end: "... the two agents are ..." should probably be "... the two functions are ...", in order to be paralle to the first sentence of the paragraph. In section 4.1, last para: "... establishes that the dialog is no longer eligible for CC requests." should be "... establishes that the dialog is no longer eligible for CC activation." In section 4.2, para 2 could be clarified by changing "insufficient to satisfy his needs" to "insufficient to satisfy his needs (e.g., the callee's voicemail)". In section 4.2, para 4, sentence 2: I think this sentence needs to be in the past tense to be clear: "Note that from the SIP point of view, the INVITE may have been successful, but from the user's point of view, the call may have been unsuccessful." In section 4.2, para 6 is: The caller's agent sends a SUBSCRIBE request for the call-completion event package to all known monitor URIs and to the original destination URI of the call, which are provided by a Call-Info header in provisional and final responses to the INVITE. This could be improved by: The caller's agent sends a SUBSCRIBE request for the call-completion event package to the original destination URI of the call and to all known monitor URIs (which are provided by Call-Info headers in provisional and final responses to the INVITE). In section 4.2, para 6, changes are needed because we no longer do call correlation: ... The callee's monitor uses the existence of the subscription to know that the caller is interested in using the CC feature in regard to the specified callee. The monitor keeps a list or queue of the caller's agent's subscriptions, which indicate the callers that are waiting to use the CC features. In section 4.2, para 9, adding a hyphen makes this phrase clearer: "... the next not-suspended CC agent ...". In section 4.2, para 2, now that we aren't doing call correlation, the last sentence should be changed to "To support this, the caller's agent must record successful calls as well as unsuccessful calls.". [My apologies for the multiple revisions of section 5 in my various commentaries. The complete revision given for issue 1010 is the last one I wrote, and I think it incorporates everything I've suggested for that section.] In section 5, para 1, "A CECE is removed ... exceeds a particular time limit." should be made less rigid, as the local policies may vary. Perhaps "A CECE is removed from the set based on local policy, which is likely to include a limit on the lifetime timer." In section 5, paras 2, 3, and 4: I think the paragraph breaks are not where intended. The current text is: A subset of the CECEs are organized into a queue. Each CECE has an availability state, which is either "available for recall" or "not available for recall". This availability state is only significant for CECEs in the queue. It is not visible via subscriptions. Each CECE has a recall state which is visible via subscriptions. The recall state is either "queued" or "ready". This recall state is only significant for CECEs in the queue. CC subscriptions arrive at the the monitor by being addressed to the managed URI. The CECEs being subscribed to are identified by the Request URI. When a CECE is destroyed, any subscriptions to its state are terminated. whereas it reads better as: A subset of the CECEs are organized into a queue. Each CECE has an availability state, which is either "available for recall" or "not available for recall". This availability state is only significant for CECEs in the queue. It is not visible via subscriptions. Each CECE has a recall state which is visible via subscriptions. The recall state is either "queued" or "ready". This recall state is only significant for CECEs in the queue. CC subscriptions arrive at the the monitor by being addressed to the managed URI. The CECEs being subscribed to are identified by the Request URI. When a CECE is destroyed, any subscriptions to its state are terminated. In section 5, para 7, the reference to RFC 3863 is not well formatted: "PIDF bodies (RFC 3863[RFC3863]), via PUBLISH". I think this can be cleaned up by saying "PIDF bodies [RFC3863], via PUBLISH". In section 7.2, para 2: "... and should respond 482 ..." should be "... and SHOULD respond 482 ...". In section 7.2, para 2: "... restrictions as which ..." should be "... restrictions as to which ...". In section 7.2, page 16, para 4: The paragraph has a stray "_" before and after it. In section 7.2, para 4: Because we are no longer doing call correlation, this needs to be rephrased: ... If the callee's monitor becomes aware that, according to its policy, a subscription will never be selected for call-completion, it SHOULD terminate the subscription. In section 7.3, para 1, "... the vital datum is that it contains an indication ..." should be "... the vital datum that it contains is an indication ...". In section 7.3, para 1, "requestst" should be "requests". In section 7.3, para 3: Because we aren't doing call correlation, this needs to be reworded (as marked by *...*): The callee's monitor has a policy regarding when and how it selects CC requests to be activated. This policy may take into account the type of the requests (e. g. CCNR vs. CCBS), the state of the callee's UA(s), the order in which *the CC requests* arrived, *the length of time the CC requests have been active,* and any previous CC attempts for the same original call. Usually the callee's monitor will choose only one CC request for activation at a time, but if the callee's UA(s) can support multiple calls, it may choose more than one. *Usually the callee's monitor will choose the oldest active request.* In section 7.3, para 4: Update the terminology: "When the callee's monitor changes the state datum for the chosen subscription from "queued" to "ready", ..." In section 7.4, para 1: Update the terminology: "... by changing the value of its state datum to "queued"." In section 10.1, "a user's entry" should probably be "the subscriber's entry". In section 11, page 26: Stray ">" in para 1. In section 11, page 26, item 4: The first sentence is the correct item 4; the second sentence should be a separate paragraph after the itemized list. In section 12.3, 12.4, and 12.5, the tables are badly formatted. (Depending on the tools you are using, the best course of action may be to leave fixing this to the RFC editor.) Dale
- Re: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-compleā¦ Worley, Dale R (Dale)