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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

Thanks for your comments! See inline.

>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...

I agree. I'll fix as suggested.

-------

>   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."

Correct. I'll fix as suggested.

------

> 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.

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