Re: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 24 June 2015 21:47 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F3701B2E5E; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 uay_NqaJg6Zj; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
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 775601A00C7; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.1/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t5OLlMq3003537 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:47:22 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-71-170-237-80.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [71.170.237.80] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Message-ID: <558B2565.9040202@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:47:17 -0500
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
References: <55821BCA.5080809@gmail.com> <1D20C931-3AA5-40B6-BC79-6B42D84FB534@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <1D20C931-3AA5-40B6-BC79-6B42D84FB534@piuha.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000504020303080801020701"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/Ku1QskODoke7aFPzITAUarOau6g>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Gen Art <gen-art@ietf.org>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:47:28 -0000
I'm not an author, but I am closely involved with the document and the base spec so will jump in here anyhow in interest of timing. On 6/24/15 4:13 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Thanks for your review, Tom. Authors, is there an answer to Tom’s question? > > jari > > On 17 Jun 2015, at 22:15, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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-sipcore-6665-clarification-00 >> Reviewer: Tom Taylor >> Review Date: 17 June 2015 >> IETF LC End Date: 17 June 2015 >> IESG Telechat date: 25 June 2015 >> >> Summary: This is a very short document expanding on a sentence in RFC 6665 to make clear the requirements surrounding use of GRUUs in the SIP event framework. It is probably good to go except for a minor issue of terminology that needs clarification. The reviewer apologizes for not being current on that terminology if it is a matter of common usage. >> >> Major issues: None. >> >> Minor issues: The term "local target" is used in the text (and in RFC 6665. RFC 3261 speaks of a remote target, but not a local one. In which document is "local target" defined? It's a well-known slight-typo that appears in several SIP documents at this point. It should say "local contact" to reuse the terms from 3261 (and 5057), but it follows easily from context that "local target" is the dual of "remote target" (When A is in a dialog with B, A's remote target is B's local contact/local target, and vice-versa). IMHO in this case, keeping with the words used in 6665 (local target) is the better thing to do. RjS >> >> Nits/editorial comments: None. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-… Tom Taylor
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipc… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipc… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipc… Jari Arkko