[drinks] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT)
"Barry Leiba" <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 24 March 2015 18:32 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Original-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: drinks@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AED1A8835; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
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 pUxCwFKoNfVr; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F771A6EFB; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:32:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.12.3
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150324183228.27478.45837.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:32:28 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/drinks/CnhX6_Xpw856OR9cncpwJIjsiJU>
Cc: drinks@ietf.org, drinks-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: [drinks] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks/>
List-Post: <mailto:drinks@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:32:31 -0000
Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework-09: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-drinks-spp-framework/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Former DISCUSS points, which are now left in "I trust the authors and AD to do the right thing" state: -- Section 2 -- This document reuses terms from [RFC3261], [RFC5486], use cases and requirements documented in [RFC6461] and the ENUM Validation Architecture [RFC4725]. These are all listed as informative references. If this terminology is required in order to understand the terms used in this document, those references (3261 and 5486) need to be normative. Left to judgment to decide. -- Section 4.11 -- At the time of this writing, a choice of transport protocol has been provided in SPP Protocol over SOAP document. This would be a good place for a reference to that draft. I think the reference is important, as you've made it MTI; I think it's a normative one. I don't think "At the time of this writing" is necessary, though if you really like it I don't object. It's also missing a "the" and some quotes, as thus: NEW One choice of transport protocol has been provided in the document "SPP Protocol over SOAP" [reference]. END About OrgIdType, I don't think the document makes it clear what this is, and why new ones would be registered in the first place. Why would we ever need an OrgIdType Namespace other than "iana-en"? Maybe add a sentence or two about that? The rest of these have already been reviewed and accepted by the authors; thanks for taking the time to consider them: -- Section 1 -- 1. A resolution system returns a Look-Up Function (LUF) that comprises the target domain to assist in call routing (as described in [RFC5486]). I don't know that it means for a LUF to "comprise the target domain"; perhaps its a meaning of "comprise" with which I'm unfamiliar. (Similarly for bullet 2.) Also, where in 5486 is this described? Is it Section 4.3.3? It'd be helpful to include that. -- Section 2 -- In addition, this document specifies the following additional terms: You can get rid of "In addition," (my preference) or "additional"; you don't need both. (I would also use "defines" rather than "specifies".) Server: In the context of SPPF, this is an application that receives a provisioning request and responds accordingly. It is sometimes referred to as a Registry. Registry: The Registry operates a master database of Session Establishment Data for one or more Registrants. The latter sentence in the first definition seems to say that "Server" and "Registry" are synonymous. How does it, then, make sense to have separate definitions that are different? And if they're not synonymous, perhaps it's unwise to sometimes refer to a Server as a Registry. In the definition of Registrant: Within the confines of a Registry, a Registrant is uniquely identified by a well-known ID. What is a "well-known ID"? What is well known about it? I ask because the term isn't otherwise used in this document. -- Section 4 subsections -- These subsections are inconsistent in how they refer to the transport protocol (and see Martin's comments about that). Some of those differences don't matter, but I think some do, and I think we'd be better off making the terminology consistent. 4.1, 4.2, 4.10: "a transport protocol for SPPF" 4.3: "a protocol suitable for SPPF" [is the word "suitable" significant here?] 4.4: "the SPPF transport protocol" 4.6: "the transport protocol" [doesn't mention SPPF] 4.7: "a DRINKS transport protocol" [DRINKS, as opposed to SPPF?] 4.8: "a suitable transport protocol for SPPF" 4.9: "a transport protocol suitable for SPPF" You're in a maze of little twisting passages, all different. I suggest picking one phrasing and using it in all nine subsections. -- Section 5.2 -- "Name" attributes that are used as components of object key types MUST be treated case insensitive, more specifically, comparison operations MUST use the toCasefold() function, as specified in Section 3.13 of [Unicode6.1]. It's a small point, but I think it would be better to lead with the more specific requirement, which makes the other unnecessary except by way of explanation: NEW "Name" attributes that are used as components of object key types MUST be compared using the toCasefold() function, as specified in Section 3.13 of [Unicode6.1]. That function performs case-insensitive comparisons. END