Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 27 January 2017 20:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F5512986F; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:17:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4zhtqG4M05FR; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:17:38 -0800 (PST)
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 3320F129602; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:17:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.39] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v0RKHaVM018787 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:17:37 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.39]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: marianne.mohali@orange.com
Subject: Re: Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 14:17:36 -0600
Message-ID: <9FFD25ED-6781-47D2-8231-CFBFC2A10920@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <24963_1485537325_588B802D_24963_968_1_8B970F90C584EA4E97D5BAAC9172DBB81C8C6DE3@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <148186064804.24550.3460112022117949321.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <24963_1485537325_588B802D_24963_968_1_8B970F90C584EA4E97D5BAAC9172DBB81C8C6DE3@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5319)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/cSuLb8DB1mTJzR5GYuP5wwR_kMw>
Cc: "dispatch@ietf.org" <dispatch@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number.all@ietf.org" <draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number.all@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:17:40 -0000

On 27 Jan 2017, at 11:15, marianne.mohali@orange.com wrote:

> Hi Joel,
>
> I have submitted a new version (v-13) of the draft.
> I have addressed your comment for IPv6 addresses format in the 
> example.
> Concerning your major comment, the discussion is leaded by Ben.

To that point: Please note that version 13 adds a comment to the end of 
the introduction to make it clear that this draft documents something 
that another group (3GPP) does. It is not an IETF standard.

Thanks!

Ben.

>
> I hope I have correctly address your comment.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number/
>
> Best regards,
> Marianne
>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Joel Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 16 décembre 2016 04:57
>> À : gen-art@ietf.org
>> Cc : ietf@ietf.org; draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-
>> number.all@ietf.org; dispatch@ietf.org
>> Objet : Review of draft-mohali-dispatch-cause-for-service-number-12
>>
>> Reviewer: Joel Halpern
>> Review result: Ready with Issues
>>
>> Major:
>>     This document defines a new code for use in SIP, and specifies 
>> new behavior
>> both for the code itself and for its use in history-info.  I am thus 
>> confused as to
>> how this can be an informational RFC.  It looks like it either 
>> Proposed Standard
>> or experimental.  Yes, I see that RFC 4458, which this updates is 
>> Informational.
>> But just because we did it wrong before does not make that behavior 
>> correct
>> now.  In addition to my understanding of the roles of different RFCs, 
>> I note that
>> RFC 3969 and the IANA registry both state that this assignment must 
>> be made
>> by a standards track RFC.
>>
>> Minor:
>>    Given our emphasis on IPv6 over IPv4, would it not make sense for 
>> the
>> examples to use IPv6 addresses?  (Inspired by the Id-Nits alert.)
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> 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.