Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-05

[Vijay Gurbani <[e-mail]>]

Dear Marianne: OK, if the context of "originating after CDIV" is well
understood by the folks working in this area, then I am fine with leaving
it as is.
Thanks.
- vijay

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:51 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Vijay,
>
>
>
> Actually, the « originating » is not qualifying something by itself in
> this sentence, it has to be understood as a global wording for the new
> defined session case which is "originating after CDIV" which is different
> for an “originating call leg”.
>
>
>
> If you don’t mind, I would prefer to keep this wording as it is because it
> is used although the I-D and quoted in the Introduction section in the
> following sentence:
>
> "The sessioncase-param parameter of the P-Served-User header field is
> extended with the "orig-cdiv" parameter for this "originating after CDIV"
> session case."
>
>
>
> Marianne
>
>
>
> *De :* Vijay Gurbani [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Envoyé :* lundi 5 novembre 2018 18:14
> *À :* MOHALI Marianne TGI/OLN
> *Cc :* [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Jean Mahoney;
> [e-mail]
> *Objet :* Re: Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-05
>
>
>
> Dear Marianne: Thank you, again, for attending to my comment.
>
>
>
> Note that you still have a dangling verb "originating" in the sentence.
> The verb is not qualifying anything:
>
>
>
>    For this use case, this document creates a new parameter ("orig-cdiv")
> for
>    the originating after CDIV session case to be embedded in the
> P-Served-User
>    header field.
>
>
>
> In my email, I had suggested adding "call leg" after the "originating"
> above.  Otherwise, the sentence above is incomplete ... "originating" what?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:04 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Vijay for your last feedback. I’m fine with your proposal and have
> updated the I-D accordingly (v-07):
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter/
>
> BR,
> Marianne
>
> De : Vijay Gurbani [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : lundi 5 novembre 2018 17:45
> À : MOHALI Marianne TGI/OLN
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-05
>
> Dear Marianne: Thank you for attending to my comments.
>
> I am fine with the text you added for S1.3.
>
> Regarding "secase" and "regstate" being existing parameters, ok.  However,
> since the I-D is defining the "orig-cdiv" parameter, I still think it makes
> sense to mention this before S4.  You already have the text at the end of
> S1.3 (the current sentence appears ambiguous).  Let me suggest an edit:
>
> OLD:
> For this use case, this document creates a new parameter for the
>    originating after CDIV session case to be embedded in the P-Served-
>    User header field.
>
> NEW:
> For this use case, this document creates a new parameter ("orig-cdiv") for
> the
>    originating call leg to be embedded in the P-Served-User header field.
> Thanks.
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks Vijay for the GenArt review.
> I've just submitted a v-06 to address your comments and here is my
> feedbacks:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter/
>
> >Minor:
> >
> >- S1.3: I am not sure I follow the logic in the problem statement.  Who
> > is the "diverting" user?  The user to who the call was destined?  If so,
> > best to say that explicitly.  (To be sure, I looked into rfc5502 as well,
> > and it does not define "diverting" user either.)  A bit below (in S4),
> you
> > use the term "served" user to refer to the diverting user.  All in all,
> the
> > terminology here could be refined.  I suspect that the "originating"
> user
> > is the callee.
> >
> > Concretely, I think that the first paragraph of S1.3 should be
> re-written,
> > perhaps with a figure (?) to explain the call flow, or at least some
> > context using Alice, Bob and Carol as the example in S7.1 does (I suspect
> > that Carol is the "diverting" user here).
>
> [MM] Indeed, I can see that for people not very aware of IETF and 3GPP
> vocabulary for call diversion service, it can be confusing. I prefer not to
> add a call flow in the problem statement section but I did some updates in
> the wording and inserted the Alice, Bob and Carol users for a better
> understanding.
>
> >Nits, typos:
> >
> >- S4, step 3: s/user an INVITE that/user as an INVITE that/
> > Also, the "secase" and "regstate" parameters are what you are
> standardizing
> > this I-D, as such you mention this before S4 so the reader knows that
> > these are the new parameters.  Same for "orig-cdiv" parameter.
>
> [MM] Nits is corrected. About your comment, actually, this I-D is only
> standardizing "orig-cdiv" parameter. This is the reason why "sescase" and
> "regstate" appear, as part of a normal session establishment and before any
> call diversion while the new parameter can appear only when this event
> occurs (as added by this I-D).. I hope it's clearer for you.
>
> I hope it's ok.
>
> Best regards,
> Marianne
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Vijay Gurbani [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Envoyé : lundi 29 octobre 2018 21:50
> À : [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Objet : Genart last call review of
> draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-05
>
> Reviewer: Vijay Gurbani
> Review result: Almost Ready
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-sipcore-originating-cdiv-parameter-??
> Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani
> Review Date: 2018-10-29
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-10-26
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described
> in the review.
>
> Major issues: 0
>
> Minor issues: 1
>
> Nits/editorial comments: 1
>
> Minor:
>
> - S1.3: I am not sure I follow the logic in the problem statement.  Who
>  is the "diverting" user?  The user to who the call was destined?  If so,
>  best to say that explicitly.  (To be sure, I looked into rfc5502 as well,
>  and it does not define "diverting" user either.)  A bit below (in S4),
> you
>  use the term "served" user to refer to the diverting user.  All in all,
> the
>  terminology here could be refined.  I suspect that the "originating" user
>  is the callee.
>
>  Concretely, I think that the first paragraph of S1.3 should be re-written,
>  perhaps with a figure (?) to explain the call flow, or at least some
>  context using Alice, Bob and Carol as the example in S7.1 does (I suspect
>  that Carol is the "diverting" user here).
>
> Nits, typos:
>
> - S4, step 3: s/user an INVITE that/user as an INVITE that/
>  Also, the "secase" and "regstate" parameters are what you are
> standardizing
>  this I-D, as such you mention this before S4 so the reader knows that
>  these are the new parameters.  Same for "orig-cdiv" parameter.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
> recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou
> falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and
> delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been
> modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
>
> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
> Thank you.
>
>