Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates as AD sponsored

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

Are you ok with my suggested way forward?

Regards,

Christer



On 21/04/16 22:43, "Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi Adam,
>
>....
>
>>> One additional review note that does not affect my expert review
>>>(treat it as a last-call comment):
>>>
>>>
>>>      Add statement that the P-Visited-Network-ID header field cannot
>>>      appear in the SIP NOTIFY, PRACK, INFO and UPDATE methods.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that it would be significantly more future proof to
>>> phase this as "...cannot appear in mid-dialog requests," as that
>>> appears to be the intention. The revised text then becomes something
>>>like: "The P-Visited-Network-ID header
>>> field can appear in all SIP methods except ACK and CANCEL; however, it
>>>cannot be sent in >any mid-dialog requests."
>>
>> Seems reasonable, but I'll verify with my 3GPP delegates.
>
>I had a closer look at this, and I don't think we can forbid usage in all
>mid-dialog requests.
>
>For example, the header field is allowed in OPTIONS, that can be sent
>in-dialog.
>
>Also, the header field is allowed in REFER, and RFC 7614 defines a
>mechanism that allows in-dialog REFERs.
>
>re-INVITE is also tricky. The header field is generally allowed in INVITE
>requests, but there is no text explicitly disallowing it in re-INVITEs.
>
>Whether it makes sense to include the header field in the methods above I
>don't know (3GPP does allow them), but as the purpose is only to align
>7315 with 3455 I'd suggest we keep the text as it is.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 3/7/16 14:08, A. Jean Mahoney wrote:
>Since this draft updates RFC 7315, which required expert review of its
>header fields, Adam Roach will be conducting an expert review of this
>draft according to the guidance given in RFC 5727.
>
>Thanks, 
>
>Jean 
>
>
>On 3/7/16 9:33 AM, Mary Barnes wrote:
>
>Hi folks, 
>
>This document has been proposed to be progressed as AD sponsored:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates/
>The document has been carefully reviewed and it is now ready to move
>forward - Jean Mahoney is the shepherd.
>
>I don't anticipate anyone would have concerns about this decision, given
>that's how RFC 7315 was progressed and this update has actually been much
>more carefully reviewed.  However, f anyone has any final comments,
>please post no later than Friday, March 11th, 2016.  Note, that you will
>also still have IETF LC to provide any comments.
>
>Regards,
>Mary. 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dispatch mailing list
>[e-mail] 
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>_______________________________________________
>dispatch mailing list
>[e-mail] 
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>
>_______________________________________________
>dispatch mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch