Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-straw-sip-traceroute-02

[Meral Shirazipour <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,
   The comment about 3261 section 8.1.1.6 was related to the sentence:
" Lower values should be used with caution and only in networks where
topologies are known by the UA." If you and others see no objection I am ok
with that too.

Best Regards,
Meral


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 10:09 PM
> To: Meral Shirazipour
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
The
> IESG
> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-straw-sip-
> traceroute-02
> 
> Thank you very much for the review, Meral.
> 
> Hadriel - any thoughts on these comments? And Meral, which part of 3261
> section 8.1.1.6 are you thinking that is violated? The MUST? The SHOULD?
The
> should? I thought it violated only the SHOULD and should parts. which I
think
> should be fine. but looking at Hadriel for confirmation...
> 
> Jari
> 
> On 02 Jul 2014, at 18:59, Meral Shirazipour
<[e-mail]>
> 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-straw-sip-traceroute-02
> > Reviewer: Meral Shirazipour
> > Review Date: 2014-07-02
> > IETF LC End Date:   2014-07-04
> > IESG Telechat date: 2014-07-10
> >
> >
> > Summary:
> > This draft is ready to be published as Standards Track RFC, but I have
some
> comments.
> >
> > Nits/editorial comments:
> > - Abstract Suggestion to spell out SIP and B2BUA (Back-to-Back User
Agent).
> > Also not clear in abstract and in section 1 if hop by hop traceroute for
SIP
> means sequence of B2BUAs. The analogy to IP traceroute is good but it
would
> be better to clarify the difference with SIP traceroute. Please take a
look at this.
> >
> > -[Page 3] "be used to directly to test"---->"be used directly to test"
> >
> > -[Page 4]  Section 3.1 references to RFC3261, which is not listed in the
> references section. Also it would be preferable to cite this RFC the first
time
> Max-Forwards header field  is mentioned on Section 1.
> >
> > -[Page 6] [draft-loop-detection] does not refer to the latest version
(to be
> replaced by RFC number since it is in RFC queue?).
> >
> > -Just wondering if the proposed mechanism does not violate Section
8.1.1.6 of
> RFC3261
> > "
> >    A UAC MUST insert a Max-Forwards header field into each request it
> >    originates with a value that SHOULD be 70.  This number was chosen to
> >    be sufficiently large to guarantee that a request would not be
> >    dropped in any SIP network when there were no loops, but not so large
> >    as to consume proxy resources when a loop does occur.  **Lower values
> >    should be used with caution and only in networks where topologies are
> >    known by the UA.**
> >
> > "
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Meral
> > ---
> > Meral Shirazipour
> > Ericsson Research
> > www.ericsson.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gen-art mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art