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

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
>