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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

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