Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21 - The pull request

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 21 December 2018 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA27130EAF; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:43:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
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 Qgh5E68g1ZGd; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB60E130E1D; Fri, 21 Dec 2018 15:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.45] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id wBLNhh41062945 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:43:44 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1545435825; bh=DO9puGKFqgt+FlncYUP+tb8cu+6346Cb8B+ZHz9qHYw=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=K3rgypUAVBeJRiPqJeprQtGOqU0wb44qKyzvc8g+vRJ5Addf4QcP5OSIgEWdRW5ss wvP7Xd903O42jMFSi6QR3giszCfdZOwE4hj4urwE+i9Oi3FtKsddGn+pFl+bZ9u4HO vVkh36u33+WqrlK3YvUpXntb2bVF2LWkaTXJ5Tro=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.45]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <84A10934-7DCE-461E-A94B-226DA28F1B52@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3DA03866-2B6F-4C1F-9367-668A9F365BA1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:43:43 -0600
In-Reply-To: <F6B5B4D9-C8DA-4B9E-9EE9-372FFCCAE293@ericsson.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "sipcore@ietf.org" <sipcore@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push.all@ietf.org>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <F6B5B4D9-C8DA-4B9E-9EE9-372FFCCAE293@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/GKE_GScfRYgpYhCp2mOBJw_bOeY>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21 - The pull request
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 23:43:52 -0000

This looks good to me. Please submit a new revision when you are ready.

Since these changes look minor and not likely to be controversial, I am going to go ahead and create a ballot for this. It will likely end up on the 10 January telechat.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Dec 21, 2018, at 2:50 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Based on the gen-art comments from Stewart, I have created a pull request for the suggested changes.
> 
> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sip-push/pull/31 <https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sip-push/pull/31>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>
> Date: Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 17.37
> To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com <mailto:stewart.bryant@gmail.com>>, "gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>" <gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>>
> Cc: "sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>" <sipcore@ietf.org <mailto:sipcore@ietf.org>>, "iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>" <iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push.all@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push.all@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push.all@ietf.org <mailto:draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push.all@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-sip-push-21
> Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
> Resent-To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>, <michael.arnold@metaswitch.com <mailto:michael.arnold@metaswitch.com>>, "A. Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com <mailto:mahoney@nostrum.com>>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net <mailto:br@brianrosen.net>>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com <mailto:ben@nostrum.com>>, "adam@nostrum.com <mailto:adam@nostrum.com>" <adam@nostrum.com <mailto:adam@nostrum.com>>, <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm <mailto:aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>>, Brian Rosen <br@brianrosen.net <mailto:br@brianrosen.net>>
> Resent-Date: Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 17.37
> 
> Hi Stewart,
> 
> Thank You for the review! Please see inline.
> 
> >Summary: A well written document with some minor points that could use a little
> >attention.
> >
> >Major issues: None
> >
> >Minor issues:
> >
> >In Figure 1 the following is included:
> >
> >     REGISTER sip:alice@example.com <sip:alice@example.com> SIP/2.0
> >     Via: SIP/2.0/TCP alicemobile.example.com:5060 <http://alicemobile.example.com:5060/>;branch=z9hG4bKnashds7
> >     Max-Forwards: 70
> >     To: Alice <sip:alice@example.com <sip:alice@example.com>>
> >     From: Alice <sip:alice@example.com <sip:alice@example.com>>;tag=456248
> >     Call-ID: 843817637684230@998sdasdh09
> >     CSeq: 1826 REGISTER
> >     Contact: <sip:alice@alicemobile.example.com <sip:alice@alicemobile.example.com>;
> >       pn-provider=acme;
> >       pn-param=acme-param;
> >       pn-prid=ZTY4ZDJlMzODE1NmUgKi0K>
> >     Expires: 7200
> >     Content-Length: 0
> >
> > SB> However I don't at this stage of the text see the relationship between the
> > SB> packet flow digram and the text that follows.
> 
> I could add the following:
> 
> “Below is an example of a SIP REGISTER request in Figure 1.”
> 
> =========
> 
> >   Contact: IESG (iesg@ietf.org <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>)
> >
> > SB> Is the whole IESG the most appropriate first point of contact?
> 
> That is what I was told :)
> 
> Note that I have used it also for other documents.
> 
> =========
> 
> >Nits/editorial comments:
> >Presumably the references to RFC XXXX will be replaced by RFC <this RFC> but
> >that does not seem to be noted in the text
> 
> I will add a note to the RFC editor about that.
> 
>         “[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFCXXXX with the RFC number of this document.]”
> 
> ========
> 
> > SB> As dicussed in [RFC4320] and [RFC4321], non-INVITE transactions must
> > SB> Typo s/dicussed/discussed/
> 
> I will fix as suggested.
> 
> ========
> 
> >   Example: pn-prid = 00fc13adff78512
> >
> >   For more information about the APNs Topic and device token:
> >
> > SB> Is the following part of the example? If so it could usefully be delimited
> > SB> as such, otherwise, I don't understand why it is not a normal document
> > SB> reference.
> >
> >   https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/NetworkingI <https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/NetworkingI>
> >   nternet/Conceptual/RemoteNotificationsPG/CommunicatingwithAPNs.html
> >
> > SB> Similarly in the following section
> 
> The link reference is not part of the example. Perhaps I could place to reference before the examples, to make that more clear?
> 
> Are you suggesting that I add the link to the reference section, similar to document references?
> 
> =========
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer