IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Last Call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-6665-clarification-00

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Wed, 24 June 2015 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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 B48141B2E71; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 jshLH1dab9Tp; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2861B2E4F; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:52:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBB302CEE4; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:52:15 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZOxmf9R6JMd4; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:52:14 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB3D2CC49; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 00:52:10 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1EEC97B0-A560-411F-8299-B8BAA4BEE5A4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <558B2565.9040202@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 18:52:06 -0300
Message-Id: <4E80F9B4-7934-43D2-910C-AFACE708181D@piuha.net>
References: <55821BCA.5080809@gmail.com> <1D20C931-3AA5-40B6-BC79-6B42D84FB534@piuha.net> <558B2565.9040202@nostrum.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/QiqCDl6UT7Cy9vB8jx5Ox8eeM4I>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Gen Art <gen-art@ietf.org>, sipcore-chairs@ietf.org, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
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 21:52:19 -0000

Thanks for the explanation, Robert!

On 24 Jun 2015, at 18:47, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:

> 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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email