Re: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Tue, 02 November 2010 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 862E13A6894 for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vh85W3ZmmEVB for <bliss@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442273A6882 for <bliss@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7b54ae000003464-31-4ccfc650e630
Received: from esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id DA.1E.13412.056CFCC4; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:05:36 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.175]) by esessmw0191.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.115.84]) with mapi; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:05:36 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Shida Schubert <shida@agnada.com>, BLISS <bliss@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:05:36 +0100
Thread-Topic: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07
Thread-Index: ActrXnAitYl8BawBSKqPxJi4xVREqAPBXjAt
Message-ID: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A058502C71844@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se>
References: <46705063-0A81-4DE5-927A-C74FC13AF6C9@agnada.com>
In-Reply-To: <46705063-0A81-4DE5-927A-C74FC13AF6C9@agnada.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
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07
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: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 08:05:35 -0000

Hi,

Below are my comments (I appologise that they are a few days late). Most are editorial, but there are also a few questions.

Section      Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3                "CC indicator: a iniction" -> "CC indicator: an indication"
 
3                CC queue, is definition correct? Sounds like all failed calls.
 
4.1             "or be provided by a centralized application server" seems to suggest one (for both agent and monitor). Wouldn't "or be provided by centralized application servers" be more general?
 
4.1             Usage of the word "agent" is more general than in the definition where it is caller's agent. Example (3rd para): "Though it is expected that a UA that "implements call completion" will have both types of agents..."
 
4.1             Last para: I think the words "that have been" shall be removed from the following sentence " The monitor maintains information about the set of INVITEs that have been received by the UA(s) 
                  that may not have been considered successful by the calling user." otherwise I think the "considered succesful" refers to the UAs, not the INVITEs.
 
5                3rd para: "the the monitor"->"the monitor"
 
5                Para describing algorithm: Although there is no normative text, it suggests a FIFO queue since it is the entry that "has resided in the queue the longest" that is selected. Is this not a subject of local policy? Para 7.3 also describes this as a policy.
 
5                3rd para from the end: "an CC INVITE"->"a CC INVITE"
 
7.2             2nd para first sentence: "The callee's monitor(s) that receive the SUBSCRIBE establish subscriptions." Something is missing. to establish??
 
7.2             Last para. What do the underscores mean? 
 
7.3             2nd para. An extra ' in "'cc-service-retention".
 
7.3             Last para: "also contain also"->"contain also".
 
8                2nd para below figure: "is the where the"->"is where the"
 
9.11           "to to avoid"->"to avoid"
 
11              What does ">" mean in 3rd line?
 
12.1           There is a missing reference at second line.

Regards,

Christer







________________________________________
From: bliss-bounces@ietf.org [bliss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shida Schubert [shida@agnada.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:12 AM
To: BLISS
Subject: [BLISS] WGLC for draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07

This is an announcement of BLISS WG last call on
"Call Completion" prior to requesting publication the
document as a proposed standard.

This is a two week working group last call so please send your
comments to the list including nits by the 29th of October.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bliss-call-completion-07.txt

Regards
Shida Schubert (As WG chair)
_______________________________________________
BLISS mailing list
BLISS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bliss