[Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-13

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

These resolutions have been carried forward to the -13 version of the draft.

Thanks,
--David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Black, David
> Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 6:25 PM
> To: Black, David; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: Shida Schubert; [e-mail]; IETF Discussion; Robert Sparks
> Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-12
> 
> The -12 version of this draft resolves all of the comments in the
> Gen-ART review of the -11 version.
> 
> Thanks,
> --David
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Black, David
> > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:51 PM
> > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Cc: Black, David; Shida Schubert; [e-mail]; IETF Discussion; Robert
> > Sparks
> > Subject: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-11
> >
> > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> >
> > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> > you may receive.
> >
> > Document: draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-11
> > Reviewer: David L. Black
> > Review Date: June 28, 2012
> > IETF LC End Date: June 28, 2012
> > IESG Telechat date: (if known)
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the
> review.
> >
> > This draft describes support for shared appearances in support of multi-line
> > and shared-line telephone often found in businesses.  All of the open issues
> > are minor.  The draft is well-written and reasonably clear for the most
> part,
> > although significant SIP expertise is required to completely understand it.
> >
> > Major issues:  None.
> >
> > Minor issues:
> >
> > 4.1 - REQ-16:
> >
> >    in this case, seizing the line is the same thing as dialing.
> >
> > That seems wrong - I would have thought it was a "prerequisite" as
> > opposed to "the same thing" because seizing the line is immediately
> > followed by a dialing request.
> >
> > 5.3.
> >
> >    A user may select an appearance number but then abandon placing a
> >    call (go back on hook).  In this case, the UA MUST free up the
> >    appearance number by removing the event state with a PUBLISH as
> >    described in [RFC3903].
> >
> > What happens when that can't be done due to UA or network failure?
> >
> > 5.4.
> >
> >    A 400 response is returned if the chosen appearance number is invalid,
> >
> > Is that always a 400 (Bad Request) or is any 4xx response allowed?  If
> > it's always 400, add the words "Bad Request" after "400".
> >
> >    If the Appearance Agent policy does not allow this, a 400 response
> >    is returned.
> >
> > Same question.  In addition, is 403 Forbidden allowed here?
> >
> >    If an INVITE is sent by a member of the group to the shared AOR (i.e.
> >    they call their own AOR), the Appearance Agent MUST assign two
> >    appearance numbers.  The first appearance number will be the one
> >    selected or assigned to the outgoing INVITE.  The second appearance
> >    number will be another one assigned by the Appearance Agent for the
> >    INVITE as it is forked back to the members of the group.
> >
> > How does that interact with the single appearance UAs in 8.1.1 that won't
> > understand the second appearance number?  A warning that such a UA can't
> > pick up its call to its own AOR would suffice, either here or in 8.1.1.
> >
> > 9.1
> >
> >    A UA that has no knowledge of appearances must will only have
> >    appearance numbers for outgoing calls if assigned by the Appearance
> >    Agent.  If the non-shared appearance UA does not support Join or
> >    Replaces, all dialogs could be marked "exclusive" to indicate that
> >    these options are not available.
> >
> > Should that "could be marked" be changed to "SHOULD be marked" ?
> > Also, analogous questions for "could" in 9.2 and "can" in 9.3.
> >
> > All three of these affect interoperability.
> >
> > 12. Security Considerations
> >
> > In general, this section is weak on rationale - the second, third and
> > fourth paragraphs should all explain more about the purpose of and/or
> > rationale for their security requirements (e.g., what does the security
> > mechanism protect against and when/why might that protection be desired
> > and/or required?).
> >
> >    NOTIFY or PUBLISH message bodies that provide the dialog state
> >    information and the dialog identifiers MAY be encrypted end-to-end
> >    using the standard mechanisms.
> >
> > What are "the standard mechanisms"?  List them, and provide references,
> > please.
> >
> > Please ensure that the section 6 XML and Section 7 ABNF are
> > syntax-checked with actual tools.
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> >
> > p.10:
> >
> >    The next section discusses the operations used to implement parts of
> >    the shared appearance feature.
> >
> > "The following list describes the operations ..." would be better.
> >
> > 5.3.1.
> >
> >    A UA wanting to place a call but not have an appearance number
> >    assigned publishes before sending the INVITE without an 'appearance'
> >    element but with the 'shared' event package parameter present.
> >
> > I think I understand what was intended here, but this would be clearer
> > if "publishes" was replaced with language about sending a PUBLISH.
> > It's also not completely clear whether "without" applies to the
> > INVITE or the PUBLISH, so this sentence probably needs to be reworded.
> >
> > 5.4. - Expand B2BUA acronym on first use.
> >
> > idnits 2.12.13 ran clean.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --David
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer
> > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
> > [phone]             FAX: [phone]
> > [e-mail]        Mobile: [phone]
> > ----------------------------------------------------