Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt

Suresh

Thank you for the review, and I'm sorry I hadn't replied earlier.  My 
real job had recently thrown me for a loop, and I'm still recovering 
from that.  I hope that won't happen again!

I also discovered a few changes that should have happened when I 
reduced the list of namespaces from 50 to 40 (between the last to 
revs of the ID). I apologize for not catching these - but I did 
thanks to Suresh's review.

Comments in-line

At 03:44 PM 10/10/2008, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for
>draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-03.txt
>
>For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
><http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>
>Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>you may receive.
>
>Summary: Almost ready for publication but I have a few comments.
>
>Major
>=====
>
>* The draft assumes some kind of ordering requirement between 
>namespaces. From my reading of RFC4412, this is not the case.
>
>"Thus, a message (or a call) with the following Resource-Priority
>  header value:
>
>  dsn-000001.8
>
>  for example, MUST NOT ever receive preferential treatment over a
>  message, for example, with this Resource-Priority header value:
>
>  dsn-000010.0

In the movement from -02 to -03, I changed the new namespace request 
structure from

       dsn-000000 through dsn-000032,
to
       dsn-000000 through dsn-000009 plus
       drsn-000000 through drsn-000009 plus
       rts-000000 through rts-000009 plus
       crts-000000 through crts-000009

There are still 40 namespace requests, but the ASCII values changed, 
and I haven't done all the changes.

The IANA section had the right namespaces.

What this means is dsn-000010 doesn't exist any more, therefore 
needed to be changed. In attempting to rewrite what I had, which was 
only restating the point of section 8 of RFC 4412, I soon realized 
section 8 shouldn't be restated, because it is right the way it is 
written, and restating it could lose interpretation between the two documents.

Therefore, my conclusion is to remove the inserted text (i.e., from 
what you start with "Thus..." all the way to just before the 
paragraph that begins with"The dash..."

I believe leaving anything in that makes any of these points in these 
few paragraphs is poorly written, and shouldn't restate what is in RFC 4412.

>  because they are two difference namespaces"
>
>e.g.
>
>Consider an RP actor that supports both the namespaces, dsn-000001 
>and dsn-000010. It could maintain an ordered list which contains
>
>dsn-000001.9
>dsn-000001.8
>dsn-000010.9
>...
>dsn-000010.0
>
>and this is a valid priority order according to section 8.2 of 
>RFC4412. Given this, why would this be considered invalid behavior 
>if dsn-000001.8 DID receive preferential treatment over 
>dsn-000010.0? This might be a major misunderstanding on my part. If 
>so please correct me.
>
>Editorial
>=========
>
>* Introduction
>
>Replace
>"Each will be preemption in nature"
>with
>"Each will be preemptive in nature"

done

>Nits
>====
>
>* Form feed characters missing between Pages

my editor doesn't allow these to be inserted

>Opinion(feel free to ignore)
>============================
>
>* Why so many 0's in the name of the namespace? It is really easy 
>for someone to miss a 0 or two.

This is exactly what the customer (DISA) wants because most of their 
very large network is based on ISDN, and the 0s are included 
there.  They felt they didn't want the possibility of a tech 
misinterpreting different values (perhaps upon translation) when 
moving from ISDN values and SIP values.

I tried quite hard to talk them out of this idea, that it can easily 
be something that is programmed into whatever analyzer display they 
use. But I was shot down in flames -- pretty bigtime!

>* Maybe you have been asked this question million times before, but 
>are these many namespaces really necessary?

They want to be able to have these namespaces for use between 
military branches (army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard), 
whether the units are the size of the military branch, or a single 
unit within any branch, or a multi-branch unit of various 
branches).  This really does beg for a larger number that what most 
would consider normal -- but given our military's size, they don't 
want to come asking for new namespaces every couple of years when 
they've figured out they need more.

> From RFC4412
>
>"Jurisdictions SHOULD
>  attempt to reuse existing IANA registered namespaces where possible,
>  as a goal of this document is not to have unique namespaces per
>  jurisdiction serving the same purpose, with the same usage of
>  priority levels."

hopefully, this is the last time we will hear from DISA for 
namespaces; though I know of one other group within the US gov that 
will likely want namespaces - but that group isn't ready to ask for 
more at this time.

Now, that said - should I submit -04 with these minor changes before 
Thursday's meeting?

The changes are mostly deletions, with 3 or 4 other parts that I 
changed a word or two.

I also corrected the middle 20 namespaces listed at the beginning of section 2.

I'm waiting until someone tells me to do something

James

>Cheers
>Suresh

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art