[Insipid] FW: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 23 September 2013 13:22 UTC
Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
X-Original-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: insipid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 297B321F937E for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 06:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XdmLtaQ9qeFq for <insipid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 06:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3E121F8790 for <insipid@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 06:22:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r8NDMBIW001682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <insipid@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:22:13 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.111]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r8NDMAgk023682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <insipid@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:22:10 +0200
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.239]) by FR711WXCHHUB01.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.111]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:22:10 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "insipid@ietf.org" <insipid@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt
Thread-Index: AQHOuF83AdAZFu7WCUG4r+A1n4haI5nTTqwA
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:22:10 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0A85FA@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
Subject: [Insipid] FW: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt
X-BeenThere: insipid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP Session-ID discussion list <insipid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/insipid>
List-Post: <mailto:insipid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/insipid>, <mailto:insipid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:22:21 -0000
As part of the IETF review process, internet drafts get reviewed by a number of people. This is the gen-art review. Regards Keith -----Original Message----- From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:elwynd@dial.pipex.com] Sent: 23 September 2013 14:18 To: General Area Review Team Cc: draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt 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-insipid-session-id-reqts-08.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 23 September 2013 IETF LC End Date: 24 September 2013 IESG Telechat date: (if known) - Summary: Amost ready with very minor issues/nits. The only issue that is of any consequence to my mind is handling of legacy B2BUAs etc. Major issues: None. Minor issues: s4.3: I am not clear whether there needs to be any special consideration if the B2BUA doesn't support Session-ID. There could be a number of other cases to consider. In particular whether the B2BUA would forward the Session-ID if it didn't understand it. Does this also affect SBCs? Nits/editorial comments: s1: The purpose of the document is not explicitly set out in s1 - although of course it is clear in the abstract. s1 should contain a near copy of the abstract which also states that the document proposes requirements for a new SIP header (I assume) called "Session-ID". s1, para 2: > This important fact makes it > impossible for call identifiers to be exchanged end-to-end when a > network uses one or more session protocols. I would have thought that using just one session protocol didn't give problems. Do you mean "... uses more than one session protocol."? s1, last para: Expand acronym PBX. s3.1, para 6: s/some constraint/some constraints/ [arguable!] s3.2, Figure 1: [very nitty] Might be desirable to indicate the existence of the middlebox(es) on the message arrows (e.g., .....()..... or some such). Also label A and B as user agents. s3.2, 4th bullet: s/(e.g., Alice and Bob)/(e.g., between Alice and Bob)/ s3.2, 5th bullet and sub-bullets: The 2nd sub-bullet is a bit confusing: Maybe: OLD: o A call between any two user agents wherein two or more user agents are engaged in a conference call via a conference focus o Each call between the user agent and the conference focus would be a communication session o Each communication session is a distinct communication session NEW o A call between any two user agents wherein two or more user agents are engaged in a conference call via a conference focus: o each call between the user agent and the conference focus would be a communication session, and o each of these is a distinct communication session. s3.2, 6th bullets and sub-bullets: Add periods (full stops) at end of each. s4.1: Acronyms UA, B2BUA and SBC need expansion (UA and B2BUA are effectively used in s1. SBC may need a reference (RFC 6135?) s4.1: Desirable to specify that "(SIP) dialog" is defined in s12 of RFC 3261. s4.2: Once you have expanded SBC in s4.1 you could use it in s4.2! s4.3, para 1: s/SIP users, device or domain identity./SIP users, device or domain identities./ s4.3, para 1: s/or when security issue arise (e.g./or when a security issue arises (e.g.,/ s4.7, para 1: s/between two or more parties./between two or more parties other than the one setting up the call./ s7, para 2: s/In adherence with/In adhering to/
- [Insipid] FW: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-ins… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)