RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-11
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 29 June 2012 17:13 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 F306A21F86C2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tzGD2RnonXKk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:13:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD8C21F85E4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5THDV2m001578; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:13:31 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5THDUNI001564 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:13:30 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'Abdussalam Baryun' <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>, david.black@emc.com
References: <CADnDZ8_Vq4fvJzdFJUXYfrfVgtRv6E452ws+jjxs+h75qgA_iA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8_Vq4fvJzdFJUXYfrfVgtRv6E452ws+jjxs+h75qgA_iA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-11
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:13:30 +0100
Message-ID: <0c1101cd561a$81e48cf0$85ada6d0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGrVsAUJ8cU2nqJ0H4+em4dc7ailZdVh2+A
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: 'ietf' <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 29 Jun 2012 17:13:36 -0000
Please read the FAQ at http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Abdussalam Baryun > Sent: 29 June 2012 16:35 > To: david.black@emc.com > Cc: ietf > Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appearances-11 > > Hi David, > > I was not aware of this wiki and review team. does this team review > IETF procedure and policies, please advise, > > AB > =========================== > 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-bliss-shared-appearances-11 > Reviewer: David L. Black > Review Date: June 28, 2012 > IETF LC End Date: June 28, 2012 > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: > > This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the review. > > This draft describes support for shared appearances in support of multi-line > and shared-line telephone often found in businesses. All of the open issues > are minor. The draft is well-written and reasonably clear for the most part, > although significant SIP expertise is required to completely understand it. > > Major issues: None. > > Minor issues: > > 4.1 - REQ-16: > > in this case, seizing the line is the same thing as dialing. > > That seems wrong - I would have thought it was a "prerequisite" as > opposed to "the same thing" because seizing the line is immediately > followed by a dialing request. > > 5.3. > > A user may select an appearance number but then abandon placing a > call (go back on hook). In this case, the UA MUST free up the > appearance number by removing the event state with a PUBLISH as > described in [RFC3903]. > > What happens when that can't be done due to UA or network failure? > > 5.4. > > A 400 response is returned if the chosen appearance number is invalid, > > Is that always a 400 (Bad Request) or is any 4xx response allowed? If > it's always 400, add the words "Bad Request" after "400". > > If the Appearance Agent policy does not allow this, a 400 response > is returned. > > Same question. In addition, is 403 Forbidden allowed here? > > If an INVITE is sent by a member of the group to the shared AOR (i.e. > they call their own AOR), the Appearance Agent MUST assign two > appearance numbers. The first appearance number will be the one > selected or assigned to the outgoing INVITE. The second appearance > number will be another one assigned by the Appearance Agent for the > INVITE as it is forked back to the members of the group. > > How does that interact with the single appearance UAs in 8.1.1 that won't > understand the second appearance number? A warning that such a UA can't > pick up its call to its own AOR would suffice, either here or in 8.1.1. > > 9.1 > > A UA that has no knowledge of appearances must will only have > appearance numbers for outgoing calls if assigned by the Appearance > Agent. If the non-shared appearance UA does not support Join or > Replaces, all dialogs could be marked "exclusive" to indicate that > these options are not available. > > Should that "could be marked" be changed to "SHOULD be marked" ? > Also, analogous questions for "could" in 9.2 and "can" in 9.3. > > All three of these affect interoperability. > > 12. Security Considerations > > In general, this section is weak on rationale - the second, third and > fourth paragraphs should all explain more about the purpose of and/or > rationale for their security requirements (e.g., what does the security > mechanism protect against and when/why might that protection be desired > and/or required?). > > NOTIFY or PUBLISH message bodies that provide the dialog state > information and the dialog identifiers MAY be encrypted end-to-end > using the standard mechanisms. > > What are "the standard mechanisms"? List them, and provide references, > please. > > Please ensure that the section 6 XML and Section 7 ABNF are > syntax-checked with actual tools. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > p.10: > > The next section discusses the operations used to implement parts of > the shared appearance feature. > > "The following list describes the operations ..." would be better. > > 5.3.1. > > A UA wanting to place a call but not have an appearance number > assigned publishes before sending the INVITE without an 'appearance' > element but with the 'shared' event package parameter present. > > I think I understand what was intended here, but this would be clearer > if "publishes" was replaced with language about sending a PUBLISH. > It's also not completely clear whether "without" applies to the > INVITE or the PUBLISH, so this sentence probably needs to be reworded. > > 5.4. - Expand B2BUA acronym on first use. > > idnits 2.12.13 ran clean. > > Thanks, > --David > ---------------------------------------------------- > David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer > EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 > +1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 > david.black at emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 > ----------------------------------------------------
- Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appeara… david.black
- Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-app… Alan Johnston
- Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-app… Alan Johnston
- Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-app… Abdussalam Baryun
- RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-app… Adrian Farrel
- RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-app… david.black
- RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-app… david.black
- Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-app… Worley, Dale R (Dale)
- Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-app… Alan Johnston
- RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-app… david.black
- Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appeara… david.black
- Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-bliss-shared-appeara… Black, David