IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dispatch] draft-sunil-sankar-dispatch-sip-incr-00: comments and question

Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com> Mon, 13 June 2016 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <brett@broadsoft.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4BE12D934 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=broadsoft-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TGjlsqwawDlf for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22c.google.com (mail-qg0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4681412D11B for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id v76so41032974qgv.3 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:51:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadsoft-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Cs1Iwv9Bh9SGS6kOZBn9Q+1IWebIBi5HwO9GwJMGi9I=; b=Pf0E4zC/Ae+KPz/YEeNQDVcVG9oSvh7lpjyJ62kc3qQ2kPQz1lh9KHFgIl3mPCaCJO WIKG4HLuIj8HPu+zLP4DCkxq+pH/WXQtONKivL91y1gYyWsiUqF7IXxzr4W6WBBR/2vk DuTeFmEDYJ9h8ylmMtqG83hCrZSelpi5Zyr5ztozkaRAneE4IxiFOtQwLrC6Kdx9cTf0 r0WLGfX0BokpDxRyuo3aDYmGY8nWLU+KlF27mkVWVGyBR2uWQFgzDwbGG5G4oILPgK4U B63LTCuhKNQz6bzfk2noqlU35nkk4L++QXnYRfQc3rxht0oDEeN7Y0IIa7cLhb/CXTV0 2tCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:thread-index:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=Cs1Iwv9Bh9SGS6kOZBn9Q+1IWebIBi5HwO9GwJMGi9I=; b=FDHzxgPvXQfGzKIaCCDmSUMtihmnWNBFBi6g19QuDxJ8Oqd/25a9ap+8h98yRFfGRo jnG+MaNqLg/2lKSWT3282HR/FbnpG2Tafq0D0khrAsDujvI65TaaikGGRBjNTkqmhquQ /aWGNpCFFWWtXEepxgvxeO2GPPHmFcXj5HiW3sczq00ruqv372FJl9OWwjZqFLs7qS0p 8E8PR16AdFlfqBhuvCAeixkJt1QxV1AU0YBhCQ1N3wMcSLfQxPsLKSAO4s0LPrZHcHm4 I5OlAPrtczanGUq6s07oD3xIAbIJU9DczeB/VxXC8UacoRltd0CV5Dn5juXbjnR0phEc 1HDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKRwGiZYv21c4l4Krfnl5Y/X/nVT56BXhatav2mVhwT04FydhopHGOYGP0SOZfiTPfZTs0wBpXqSHAissMd
X-Received: by 10.140.160.135 with SMTP id g129mr15826653qhg.47.1465843895340; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:51:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brett Tate <brett@broadsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdHFpIp+JGIflJvcSz+AQCRgZF5YkA==
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:51:34 -0400
Message-ID: <3dfdc76b723c199cf9ca5ed97cb2f16e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sunil Kumar Sinha -X (sunsinha - SCARLET WIRELESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED at Cisco)" <sunsinha@cisco.com>, dispatch@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/l79hEmc92d6br1Hl-SbX2JBhpB4>
Subject: [dispatch] draft-sunil-sankar-dispatch-sip-incr-00: comments and question
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:51:38 -0000

Hi,

The following are a few comments concerning
draft-sunil-sankar-dispatch-sip-incr-00.

Thanks,
Brett

------

1) The draft should clarify the relation to SHOULD and MUST within other
RFCs concerning header inclusion.  Section 6.1 appears to indicate that
you can ignore MUST statements within other RFCs concerning the need to
include a specific a header.  However, I'm currently unsure if section 4
next-to-last sentence supports or conflicts with that mandate.

2) You might want to reword section 4 to use normative language.

3) How would this draft interact with RFC 4028 from refresh -versus-
deactivation perspective?

4) How would this draft interact with draft-ietf-insipid-session-id since
the presence of the Session-ID is to help debug the call flow?

5) You should clarify that transaction specific headers such as Supported,
Require, Proxy-Require, and Content-Length need to be included again.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email