IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Last-Call] [sipcore] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 04 October 2022 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: last-call@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC3EC1522DA; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 08:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X6cC3puRDMty; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 08:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB88EC157B4A; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 08:19:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (mobile-107-107-187-94.mycingular.net [107.107.187.94]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 294FJE5m016898 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:19:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1664896757; bh=pA/MiidIQg52sTZDICne9dnXlCZT0ZpjKz6UBqdKWas=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To; b=nBKOWGikQb861qSBN4fYwkldbvrJNaVf0se6PQyV0vxgSdj76mTkQIY6iidWp0ILe GmEkUly/C6bmNL/0Yp9r+42RRUQ8UibOFFiaxGEh85YD8UirfE/iaj+HjEjZB+k9Zy zDVfSOg0i+2/OSreMArRdAPxHCDnsf6Nw9Fnsm/A=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host mobile-107-107-187-94.mycingular.net [107.107.187.94] claimed to be smtpclient.apple
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 10:19:09 -0500
Message-Id: <0FA7BABA-254C-48F7-8078-057ED047CAB7@nostrum.com>
References: <CO3PR08MB789670E638CAD8EAE42538F2895A9@CO3PR08MB7896.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Todd Herr <todd.herr@valimail.com>, art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons.all@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, sipcore@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CO3PR08MB789670E638CAD8EAE42538F2895A9@CO3PR08MB7896.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Avasarala, Ranjit (Nokia - US/Naperville)" <ranjit.avasarala@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19G82)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/AvfrsMlZFXA57GdBVxWBbqpGZtI>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [sipcore] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01
X-BeenThere: last-call@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call/>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call>, <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 15:20:38 -0000

That will happen in a document that defines such a protocol, such as the one referenced in STIR. This document should remain minimal. 

RjS

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 4, 2022, at 10:02 AM, Avasarala, Ranjit (Nokia - US/Naperville) <ranjit.avasarala@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Todd
> 
> I agree - the draft could provide few examples of where we would use SIP Reason header with multiple protocol values in the same SIP response 
> 
> Regards
> Ranjit
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sipcore <sipcore-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Todd Herr via Datatracker
> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 9:51 AM
> To: art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons.all@ietf.org; last-call@ietf.org; sipcore@ietf.org
> Subject: [sipcore] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-sipcore-multiple-reasons-01
> 
> Reviewer: Todd Herr
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> As someone unfamiliar with SIP Reason Header Fields, I'm of the opinion that perhaps an example of a header field with multiple values might be instructive as a contrast to the examples shown in RFC 3326, but I do not feel strongly enough about this to hold up the document.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sipcore mailing list
> sipcore@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email