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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

One more thing:

I guess we could also change ³all responses² to ³all non-100 responses²,
as 100 responses are also hop-to-hop (similar to ACKs triggered by non-2xx
responses).

Regards,

Christer


On 25/04/16 14:30, "Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>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
>