Re: [Ecrit] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-21: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

-22 fixes your comments, I hope:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-22

> On Feb 28, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea-21: 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 https://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:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ecrit-data-only-ea/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> One question: Should non-inactive SIP MESSAGEs be rated-limited somehow or it
> that already specified in the SIP spec (sorry don't know that by heart ;-)? If
> so a pointer would probably be good. Or maybe another thing to add to section 7
> (or a subsection or an own section) or alternatively to the security
> considerations section I guess.
> 
> One small comment/nit:
> Sec 5.2:
> "AlertMsg-Error values sent in
>   provisional responses must be sent using the mechanism defined in
>   [RFC3262]; or, if that mechanism is not negotiated, it must be
>   repeated in the final response to the transaction."
> Maybe two times MUST?
> 
> 
>