Re: [clue] WGLC for draft-ietf-clue-protocol-10

Hello Paul,

Pretty sure I reviewed v10. What makes you think its v9?

Regards, Christian

On 8/11/2016 4:13 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Thanks for the detailed comments. This doc really needs that level of 
> scrutiny by a variety of people. I'll leave it to Simon to respond in 
> detail. But some of your comments suggest to me that you were 
> reviewing -09 rather than -10. Please double check and update your 
> comments if needed.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
> On 11/7/16 6:53 AM, Christian Groves wrote:
>> Hello Paul,
>>
>> Here are my comments:
>>
>> Cl.1 bullet 1: Change "envisioned" to "defined". The information isn't
>> some future thing.
>>
>> Cl.1 para 2: Change "upon" to "over". There's other instances in the
>> draft also.
>>
>> Cl.1 para 3: The section says "Participant state machines" whereas the
>> referred to section 6 is called "Protocol state machines".
>>
>> Cl.2 Endpoint: "...and exactly one [RFC4353
>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4353>] Participant (which, in turn,
>> includes exactly one SIP User Agent)." Can we make the SIP aspect more
>> as an example? E.g. A WebRTC endpoint doesn't include a SIP user agent.
>> How about something like "...and exactly one participant (e.g. a
>> [RFC4353] paricipant)."
>>
>> Cl.4 para 1: change "...we are not able..." -> "...it is not 
>> possible..."
>>
>> Cl.4 para 1: change "Such information is designed...." -> "Such
>> information is contained..."
>>
>> Cl.4 para 2: "Three main communication layers" would it be better to say
>> "phases" instead of "layers"?
>>
>> Cl.4 bullet 2: "The version and options negotiation can be performed
>> once and only at this stage." clarification "... can be performed once
>> during the CLUE session and ...."
>>
>> Cl.4 para 3: "is is", delete one.
>>
>> Cl.4 para 4:"After that negotiation..." -> "After the negotiation..."
>>
>> Cl.4 para last: "Such messages will be..." -> "Such messages are..."
>>
>> Cl.5: "The basic structure determines the mandatory information that is
>>    carried within each CLUE message.  Such an information is made by:"
>> can this be simplified to say "The mandatory information contained in
>> each CLUE message is:"?
>>
>> Cl.5 last bullet: "Allowed values are of this kind: "1.3", "2.4", etc."
>> change to "E.g. "1.3", "2.4" etc." Otherwise it sounds like the values
>> are normative.
>>
>> General: The document talks about extensions and options. Are they
>> different? if not should we use one term.
>>
>> Cl.5.2: "RESPONSE contains mandatorily..." -> "RESPONSE contains a
>> mandatory..."
>>
>> Cl.5.2: Is there a reason why we indicated that both the response code
>> AND string are mandatory? It seems like an unnecessary duplication. Its
>> not clear that text other than what has be defined may be sent.
>>
>> Cl.5.2: The XML doesn't match the XML in section 9. E.g. responseCode is
>> of type "xs:short" in section 9 its type "type="responseCodeType".
>>
>> Cl.5.2 last paragraph: Can the paragraph be simplified to say "Upon
>> reception of the OPTIONS RESPONSE the version to be used is provided in
>> the <version> tag of the message."?
>>
>> Cl.5.2 last paragraph: "the CLUE dialogue will be those" -> "the CLUE
>> dialogue are those"
>>
>> Cl.5.3 para 1: "The MP sends to the MC an ADV as soon " -> "The MP sends
>> an ADV to the MC as soon..."
>>
>> Cl.5.3 para 1: "its media CLUE telepresence capabilities change" -> "its
>> CLUE telepresence media capabilities change"
>>
>> Cl.5.3 para 1: Rather than use "invalidates" would "replaces" be better?
>>
>> Cl.5.3 para 2: "Picture" -> "Syntax" or "Schema". Its worth harmonising
>> how each message section describes this.
>>
>> Cl.5.4: The XML doesn't match the XML in section 9. E.g. responseCode is
>> of type "xs:short" in section 9 its type "type="responseCodeType".
>>
>> Cl.5.6: The XML doesn't match the XML in section 9. E.g. responseCode is
>> of type "xs:short" in section 9 its type "type="responseCodeType".
>>
>> Cl.5.6/General: Do we need some text indicating that there's no partial
>> execution of commands. E.g. If a MP is able to understand all the
>> selected capture encodings bar one. The whole command fails and nothing
>> is instantiated.
>>
>> Cl.5.7: It says future protocol version can introduce error codes? How
>> about options? It seems like an option could introduce a specific error
>> code.
>>
>> Cl.5.7: Error code 302 is duplicated. The 2nd one should be 303.
>>
>> Cl.6 para 5: "Otherwise <if> ("channel error")..."
>>
>> Cl.6 para 1: "the MP is preparing" -> "the MP prepares"
>>
>> Cl.6.1&6.2: Do we need to indicate that the timeout and retry relates to
>> the transport (e.g. SCTP) rather than application level timers/counters?
>> I'm a bit confused about the descriptions in the draft as we have a
>> reliable transport.
>>
>> Cl.6.2 para 1: "Otherwise the MC is stuck in..." -> "Otherwise the MC
>> stays in..."
>>
>> Cl.6.2 para 3: "If the ADV elaboration..." -> "If the ADV processing..."
>>
>> Cl.6.2 para 3: "If the ADV elaboration is unsuccessful (bad syntax,
>> missing XML elements, etc.), and the number of times this has happened
>> is under the retry treshold," I don't understand why the retry threshold
>> comes in here? Wouldn't the MC simply send a NACK is there's an error.
>> It wouldn't wait for multiple instances of the erroneous message.
>>
>> Cl.6.2 para 3: "the MC sends a NACK message (i.e., an ACK with an
>>    error response code) to the MP describing the problem via a proper
>>    reason phrase." Isn't the reason code enough?
>>
>> Cl.6.2 para 4: "the MC is preparing" -> "the MC prepares".
>>
>> Cl.6.2 para 5: "the MC is waiting" -> "the MC waits".
>>
>> Cl.7 para 3:  "The version of the XML schema contained in the standard
>> document deriving from this draft will be 1.0." -> "This document
>> defines XML schema version 1.0".
>>
>> Cl.8 bullet 1: "...we may want to add more fields" -> "... more fields
>> may be added"
>>
>> Cl.8 I think it would be very helpful to include an example syntax
>> showing the definition of a new capture attribute that could be used by
>> future people as a template. Its still not clear if there's any
>> distinction between "option" and "extension".
>>
>> Cl.9: <xs:import namespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:clue-info"
>>  schemaLocation="data-model-schema-12.xsd"/> Should this be "17" instead
>> of "12" to match the version number? Does this get updated to the
>> relevant RFC number?
>>
>> Cl.10.1: "The associated Media Provider's telepresence capabilities are
>>    described in [I-D.ietf-clue-data-model-schema], Section "Sample XML
>>    file"." I'm a bit confused because the example in 10.1 doesn't match
>> the one specified in cl.27/draft-ietf-clue-data-model-schema-17. Many of
>> the attribute values are different. Some of the syntax has different
>> names. e.g. capturePoint->captureOrigin.
>>
>> Cl.10.1/10.2: protocol="CLUE" v="0.4" should this be "1.0" given this is
>> going for WGLC?
>>
>> Cl.12. Do we need to establish IANA registry for clue options/extensions
>> to manage the option names?
>>
>> Regards, Christian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/11/2016 3:26 AM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>>> This message announces the start of a WGLC for
>>> draft-ietf-clue-protocol-10.
>>>
>>> The last time we had a WGLC on this document was -04. Since then there
>>> have been substantial changes:
>>>
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-clue-protocol-10.txt;url1=draft-ietf-clue-protocol-04.txt 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have the sense that I have been the only one reviewing and
>>> commenting on this document along the way. It is important that we
>>> have thorough review by others in the wg. So please give careful
>>> attention to this document and comment back. Note that this is the
>>> last piece of CLUE. Once this one is done we can declare victory and
>>> close down the wg.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this review is starting at a busy time: the Seoul IETF
>>> meeting is coming in a week, and so some people will be busy with
>>> that. And the week after that is Thanksgiving in the US, so some
>>> people won't be off some of that week. As a result, I'm giving a
>>> longer duration for this review, so that everyone will have an
>>> opportunity to fit the work into their schedule somewhere.
>>>
>>> Starting Date: Friday, November 4, 2016
>>> Ending Date:   Wednesday, Novemeber 30, 2016
>>>
>>> Please do this so we can wrap things up.
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Paul
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> clue mailing list
>>> clue@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> clue mailing list
>> clue@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue mailing list
> clue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>