Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates as AD sponsored
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 20 April 2016 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 6047312D83C for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gQaZQrwZlQWY for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 579FD12D1BE for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u3KFxF8R084643 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:59:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>, dispatch@ietf.org
References: <CAHBDyN7iOPZN_jjd0_E5r+UG1jswY=-y17pr0skvPq5bJ2SrpA@mail.gmail.com> <56DDDFCD.5040604@nostrum.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <5717A753.3050903@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:59:15 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56DDDFCD.5040604@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040406020101050905060108"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/nKE8LCMxxU2JHH_0wXyqC6_ud9I>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatch-rfc7315-updates as AD sponsored
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: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:59:22 -0000
I apologize for the delay in responding here -- due to total mailing list volume, I do not read the DISPATCH list exhaustively, and this request for review was not brought to my attention until late last week. There is a mishandling of ACK in this draft that I need to block it on, but I think it can be remedied very easily. > o P-Access-Network-Info: Add statement that the header field can > appear in the SIP ACK method. > > o P-Charging-Vector: Add statement that the header field can appear > in the SIP ACK method. These should say "SIP ACK method, but only when sent to acknowledge a 2XX-class response." Since ACKs for non-2XX responses are processed hop-by-hop, you cannot include any information in them (for the same reason you can't put information in CANCEL requests). And so... > P-Access-Network-Info header field can appear in all SIP methods > and responses, except in CANCEL methods and CANCEL responses. > The P-Charging-Vector header field can appear in all SIP methods and > responses, except in CANCEL methods and CANCEL responses ...becomes something like: "P-Access-Network-Info and P-Charging-Vector header fields can appear in all SIP methods and responses, except in CANCEL methods, CANCEL responses, and ACK methods that acknowledge non-2xx responses." 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." /a 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 >> dispatch@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch >> > > _______________________________________________ > dispatch mailing list > dispatch@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
- [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatch-rf… Mary Barnes
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… A. Jean Mahoney
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… marianne.mohali
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Georg Mayer
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… DOLLY, MARTIN C
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… DOLLY, MARTIN C
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… A. Jean Mahoney
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Andrew Allen
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Drage, Keith (Nokia - GB)
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… marianne.mohali
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Shida Schubert
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Adam Roach
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Adam Roach
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [dispatch] Progressing draft-holmberg-dispatc… Christer Holmberg